Court Decision About Discovery in Libel Lawsuit Against Council on American-Islamic Relations Foundation

From today’s order by Magistrate Judge David T. Schutz (D. Minn.) in Saroya v. CAIR Foundation, Inc.:

Plaintiff Lori Saroya … moves to compel discovery from Defendant CAIR Foundation, Inc. … and its affiliated regional non-profit organizations…. Because Saroya’s allegations raise claims that define a broad scope of discovery, her motion to compel is granted with limited exceptions….

CAIR is a Muslim civil rights organization in Washington, D.C. that has twenty-six affiliates across the country, including CAIR Minnesota. Saroya worked as the Executive Director of CAIR Minnesota from 2007 until 2016. In 2016, Saroya joined CAIR as the National Chapter Development Director and a member of its Board of Directors. She resigned in 2018.

After her resignation, Saroya took to the internet accusing CAIR of various misconduct. Among other things, Saroya accused CAIR of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, union busting, financial mismanagement, lack of board oversight, board incompetence, creating a hostile work environment, negatively portraying Muslims, making mistakes on legal cases, receiving foreign funding, and withholding money it owed her. Neither party disputes that Saroya made these accusations.

In 2021, CAIR sued Saroya for defamation, defamation per se, tortious interference with business relationships, and breach of contract…. Saroya moved for partial judgement on the pleadings as to CAIR’s claims of defamation, defamation per se, and tortious interference with business relationships. In relevant part, she argued the defamation claims were time barred, were based on non-actionable statements, and that CAIR had failed to identify the actionable statements with specificity.

The Court denied Saroya’s motion, ordering CAIR to file an amended complaint to specifically identify the actionable defamatory statements at issue. The Court explained that “what is actionable and not actionable is not clear at all from the face of the complaint,” and it directed CAIR to clarify which statements it believed were actionable, separating those out from statements of opinion or statements outside the statute of limitations. Instead of filing an amended complaint, however, CAIR voluntarily dismissed its case with prejudice.

On January 20, 2022—less than ten days after dismissal of the 2021 litigation— CAIR issued a press release titled: “Community Update on Cyberstalking by Lori Saroya, Ex-Staffer.” It described “a situation that CAIR has been working to resolve for some time”—namely, Saroya’s use of email and social media to “cyberstalk, smear, and undermine” the organization, its affiliates, and its members.

In relevant part, the press release described how Saroya began “attacking” CAIR through email and social media after her resignation. CAIR explained, “After enduring this obsessive and destructive cyberstalking for years, we decided to file a defamation lawsuit against [Saroya] in 2021 to expose the truth and protect our team in a court of law, where the truth matters.” CAIR went on to state, “[Saroya] was not able to defeat our lawsuit” and “the judge overseeing the case ruled in our favor and denied [Saroya]’s motion to dismiss our lawsuit” CAIR asserted that even though it could have moved forward with the case, it decided to dismiss the matter in part because:

[T]he litigation had … allowed us to prove her conduct: working with Islamophobes, sending hundreds of anonymous emails in the middle of the night attacking our civil rights organization, harassing us and our supporters on social media, among many other things. She did not deny any of these claims in her response to our lawsuit, so we have already proven those facts….

Saroya claims CAIR’s press release is false and defamatory and its issuance constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress.

First, Saroya alleges CAIR falsely accused her of “cyberstalking” in three separate instances—once in the title, and twice in the body of text. She maintains that because “cyberstalking” is a crime under both federal and state law, the statements are statements of fact that are verifiably false.

Second, Saroya alleges CAIR falsely portrayed the judge’s ruling on her motion to dismiss the 2021 litigation when it wrote, “[Saroya] was not able to defeat our lawsuit. A few weeks ago, the judge overseeing the case ruled in our favor and denied [Saroya’s] motion to dismiss our lawsuit.”  She argues the judge in the 2021 litigation did not “rule in CAIR’s favor” because the judge identified deficiencies in the complaint but permitted CAIR to file an amended complaint to redress these deficiencies.

Third, Saroya alleges CAIR falsely characterized the outcome of the 2021 litigation when it wrote that the lawsuit “had already allowed us to prove her conduct” and that CAIR had “proven those facts.” Saroya alleges this statement communicates that CAIR had proven its allegations against her, including that her accusations about CAIR—which were the issue in the 2021 litigation—were false and defamatory and that she harassed the organization’s members. As Saroya’s counsel argued at the hearing on this motion, these statements, read in the context of the entire press release, may be fairly understood to allege that CAIR had won its lawsuit against Saroya on the merits—that its allegations had been proven and that the court in fact found that Saroya had defamed CAIR, tortiously interfered with its business relations and engaged in the crime of cyberstalking.

Saroya alleges that issuance of the defamatory press release also constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct that passes the bounds of decency in a civilized community. She claims she has had to seek mental health treatment to cope with the severe effects of the press release, which no reasonable person should be expected to endure, and that CAIR’s decision to issue the press release thus constitutes IIED [intentional infliction of emotional distress]….

Saroya now moves to compel discovery related to the issuance of the press release and the merits of the 2021 litigation…. Because Saroya’s claims are based on CAIR’s press release concerning the 2021 litigation, the scope of discovery in this case depends on that press release. Because Saroya alleges the press release falsely portrayed the merits and outcome of the 2021 litigation, the scope of discovery in turn depends on Saroya’s allegedly defamatory allegations that were the heart of the 2021 litigation…. Saroya’s burden of proving the falsity of CAIR’s press release requires delving into the truth or falsity of Saroya’s statements that gave rise to the 2021 litigation. In short, CAIR’s press release has opened the door to litigating—and thus discovering—the merits of the 2021 litigation.

Discovery into the merits of the 2021 litigation encompasses the strength of CAIR’s position in that lawsuit and the accuracy of Saroya’s statements about CAIR. This is especially broad considering the posture of the prior lawsuit when it ended. Because it was not clear from the face of CAIR’s complaint which precise statements it alleged constituted defamation or defamation per se, the scope of discovery as it relates to the veracity of CAIR’s defamation claims is defined by the complaint that was never amended. Additionally, discovery into the strength of CAIR’s non-defamation claims—that is, whether Saroya tortiously interfered with business relationships or breached her contract—is also appropriate in this action. It gets worse….

The nature of the parties’ relationship with one another is relevant to the issue of malice, which in turn is relevant to the issue of intent. Thus, the entirety of the parties’ history is once again within the heart of discovery….

CAIR … argues [among other things] that discovery is disproportional to the extent it bears on Saroya’s accusation that CAIR received foreign funding because it is public knowledge that CAIR has received foreign funding. In support of its argument, CAIR refers to a page on its own website titled “Dispelling Rumors about CAIR,” where CAIR acknowledges it previously received foreign financial support. Yet the thrust of CAIR’s allegations against Saroya in the 2021 complaint is that Saroya falsely implied CAIR received funding from foreign governments and terrorists when she stated CAIR accepted “international funding through their Washington Trust Foundation.” CAIR points to no public admission that it received funding from terrorists or that it received funding through the Washington Trust Foundation. Discovery into these matters is proportionate to the needs of the case….

Communications about Saroya, the press release, and the 2021 litigation are well within the scope of discovery because they bear directly on Saroya’s claims and CAIR’s defense of absence of malice….

Documents relating to Saroya’s statements against CAIR as alleged in the 2021 complaint are likewise well within the scope of the discovery because CAIR’s press release directly raised the merits of the 2021 litigation. CAIR alleged Saroya falsely accused the organization of withholding funds, gender and religious discrimination, sexual harassment, workplace hostility, retaliation, union busting, financial mismanagement, improper management, legal misconduct, receipt of foreign funding, and use of attorneys to suppress and silence employees. Whether these accusations were true bears directly on whether CAIR falsely stated the 2021 litigation had allowed it “to prove Saroya’s conduct.” …

The identity of civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings against CAIR are generally within the scope of the discovery, except to the extent they seek information about employees…. In the 2021 complaint, CAIR alleged Saroya defamed it when she accused CAIR of civil and criminal misconduct. Discovery on legal and administrative proceedings is relevant to the truth of Saroya’s allegedly defamatory statements, and to the merits of the 2021 lawsuit, but only to the extent the requests relate to CAIR itself rather than individual employees….

In addition to the substance of the discovery requests, Saroya’s request also raises an issue of how broadly CAIR is defined for the purposes of responding to the requests. Saroya proposes a broad definition of “CAIR” that includes the CAIR Foundation, Inc. as well as its affiliates. CAIR argues that “CAIR” should be defined narrowly to apply only to CAIR Foundation, Inc. The appropriate definition of “CAIR” is shaped by the requests in each category….

For more, see the full opinion.

The post Court Decision About Discovery in Libel Lawsuit Against Council on American-Islamic Relations Foundation appeared first on Reason.com.