From today’s decision in Williams v. Netflix, Inc. by Chief Justice Colm Connolly (D. Del.), denying Netflix’s motion to dismiss (for more background, see here):
Plaintiff Rachel DeLoache Williams sued defendant Netflix, Inc. based on Netflix’s portrayal of Williams in its docudrama series Inventing Anna…. In this case, at least two sets of allegedly defamatory statements are actionable at the motion to dismiss stage. Williams’ ninth set of allegedly defamatory statements reads as follows:
After several scenes about the credit card problems at the Hotel and the private tour of the museum, there is a long scene where Noah is shown meeting Williams and suggesting that she leave immediately due to the “bad situation”. At first, Williams says the problems are over and suggests they stay, but Noah insists and she gives up. He finds Anna alone in her room, drinking a lot and depressed.
Williams tells her they are leaving, making up a bogus excuse. Sorokin begs her not to leave her, but Williams leaves anyway. She and Noah pack their bags and leave the hotel immediately, leaving Sorokin alone with a hotel guard stationed outside his room.
The tenth set of allegedly defamatory statements by Williams reads as follows:
NEFF: Please, Rachel abandoned Anna. He kicked her when she was down and left her alone in some foreign country. Rachel is happy to call herself Anna’s friend when it means free shit, trips to Morocco, but as soon as times get tough… Some friends.
Williams plausibly argues that both sets of statements are false statements of fact and defamatory. By falsehood, he claims that Williams did not “abandon” Sorokin when Sorokin was “lonely, depressed, and in trouble,” but rather that Williams told Sorokin she was leaving early, that Sorokin had company when Williams left, and that Sorokin did not show up. be angry. Meaningfully defamatory, Williams claims that she “is being falsely portrayed as a fair-weather friend who abandoned Sorokin when she was alone, depressed and in trouble in Morocco, and she needed help and support” and that “[t]These are negative personal traits or attitudes that Williams does not possess.”
Netflix claims that these series of claims are substantially true because
The plaintiff left Morocco before Sorokin to go to France for work and vacation. And, before learning that Sorokin was a fraud, Williams also decided to “give the relationship some space.” So these scenes are basically true. And arguing whether this makes Williams “disloyal” cannot be proven true or false.
But the above statements do more than simply show that Williams left Morocco before Sorokin or wanted to make room for the relationship. As Williams alleges, the statements indicate that Williams “abandoned Sorokin when Sorokin was alone, depressed and in trouble in Morocco.” What if Sorokin was in an upset state and Williams left her at that point Candies be proven true or false.
Netflix alternatively argues that the ninth and tenth sets of statements are not defamatory, arguing that
The plaintiff claims that these scenes are defamatory because they show Williams “abandoning.”[ing] Sorokin” in Morocco.
This is not what happens. When “Noah” suggests Williams leave Morocco because it seems dangerous, Williams pushes back, not wanting to leave Sorokin. But the series shows Sorokin completely unconcerned and unconcerned as the guards appear to threaten Williams and watch his every move. A reasonable viewer wouldn’t blame Williams or Noah for taking their safety seriously and ultimately choosing to leave. In this episode, Kacy also refers to Williams as “a true friend” and a “good person”, further eliminating any defamatory meaning. And, while Neff criticizes Williams for leaving her, the journalist character (based on Pressler) defends her, asking, “But a friend charges another friend’s credit card without permission?”
Netflix does not dispute that the scenes depict Williams leaving Sorokin when she was alone, depressed and in trouble. Instead, Netflix references other scenes from the series to demonstrate that the ninth and tenth sets of statements do not have a defamatory meaning. But in context, these other scenes don’t negate Williams’ portrayal which leaves Sorokin in a problematic state. Nor do they rectify potentially “expos[ing] [Williams] to public contempt, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, or [to] induce a bad opinion of [her] … AND [] deprive [her] From [] friendly relationships in society” for abandoning a friend who drinks a lot and is depressed.
Accordingly, at least with respect to the ninth and tenth sets of statements, Williams has filed a defamation claim cognizable under New York law. And I need not decide at this stage of the pleadings whether the remaining alleged defamatory statements are actionable….