Megan Thee Stallion Wins $75K in Defamation/Emotional Distress/Altered Sexual Depiction Case Against "Milagro Gramz"

From today's jury verdict in Pete v. Cooper:

Question 1: Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ms. Cooper is liable to Ms. Pete for defamation per se by accusing Ms. Pete of perjury—a felony—by lying under oath in a criminal trial when she asserted that: (1) Ms. Pete was a "non-credible witness"; (2) "I could go down the list of all the different shit that was not true"; and (3) asked "Was Megan Thee Stallion caught trying to deceive the courts again?" [Jury answer: Yes, damages award $15K + $1K punitives.] …

Question 9: Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ms. Cooper intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct toward Ms. Pete? [Jury answer: Yes, damages award $8K + $1K punitives.]

Question 11: Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ms. Cooper willfully and maliciously promoted, without Ms. Pete's consent, a visual depiction of Ms. Pete that she knew or reasonably should have known was an altered sexual depiction? [Jury answer: Yes, damages award $50K.]

From a February decision by Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga (M.D. Fla.) in Pete v. Cooper:

The allegations are connected to the fallout from the 2022 conviction of Daystar Peterson, popularly known as Tory Lanez, a Canadian rapper and singer who was found guilty of assaulting Plaintiff with a firearm following a widely publicized trial. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant … uses [his social media accounts] to harass and defame Plaintiff by disseminating false narratives and conspiracy theories. These include claims that Plaintiff lied under oath, suffers from alcoholism, is "mentally retarded," and needs a guardian.

In that February decision, the court concluded that plaintiff had adequately alleged that the statements were (1) factual assertions (rather than just insults, hyperbole, or opinion), (2) false, and (3) said with knowledge or recklessness as to their being false.

The court had also allowed plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim to go forward:

According to the Amended Complaint, Peterson shot at Plaintiff's feet while shouting, "Dance, bitch[,]" injuring her. At Peterson's trial—which Defendant allegedly attended—Plaintiff testified about the shooting and described the lasting trauma she endured. After that, Defendant allegedly aligned herself with Peterson, launching a campaign of harassment: publicly accusing Plaintiff of perjury, calling her a habitual drunk, suggesting she was legally incompetent, and directing followers to a deepfake pornographic video of her.

Taken in isolation, any one of these allegations might not suffice. But taken together, and against the backdrop of Plaintiff's alleged trauma—including suicidal thoughts following the shooting—the conduct plausibly rises to the level of extreme and outrageous. "[W]here the alleged conduct on the part of the [d]efendants may not be considered outrageous when the victim is of ordinary emotional and mental status, such conduct may become actionable … when the alleged victim suffers from known emotional and/or psychological trauma."

Second, even if Defendant's conduct was not independently extreme, dismissal would be premature given the undeveloped factual record. "[T]he lack of any record evidence at this point concerning" Plaintiff's "mental state" and Defendant's "level of knowledge about it" precludes such an early determination. Because Plaintiff's trauma and Defendant's alleged exploitation of it are central to the IIED analysis, the Court cannot conclude at this stage that the claim fails as a matter of law.

I hope to most more later on the altered sexual depiction issue, which appeared to focus on the claim that defendant "direct[ed] followers to a deepfake pornographic video" of plaintiff.

John O'Sullivan, Daniel L. Humphrey, Mari F. Henderson, Marie Hayrapetian, Bomie Lee, Julian T. Schoen, and Joanna E. Menillo (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) represent plaintiff.

Comments

[John F. Carr]

On question 1, the first two items are not necessarily accusations of perjury. A witness might be not credible or make false statements without committing perjury. Some members of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts wondered what should be done with police officers after their testimony is not credited by a judge. Do they go on a Brady disclosure list? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Making mistakes or not being believed is not the same as lying. The third item, "caught trying to deceive the courts", does sound like an accusation of perjury.

[Rossami]

Based on the limited snippets here, I don't see how the court "concluded ... that the statements were ... factual assertions [] rather than just insults, hyperbole, or opinion".

"(1) Ms. Pete was a 'non-credible witness'" is very clearly a personal assessment and inherently an opinion and (3) asks a question. It may be a leading question but it's not a statement at all. (2) might imply knowledge of facts but even that seems like there are some missing steps before that can count as defamation.

The attachment is just a jury verdict form so maybe there is a legal justification for this decision and I couldn't find it. From the snippets here, though, my confidence is not high.

[santamonica811]

Re #3. (Assume that I'm mad at X, and want to hurt him.) I ask the following questions: "On Sept 3, did X put his penis in an 8-year old boy's mouth, while visiting a Jr. High school? Did X then ejaculate into that young boy's mouth, leaving his semen on the boy's yellow shirt? Did X then take the yellow shirt from the boy, and dispose of it, by dropping it off at the Middlebrook Trash collection yard, on 6th and Greenfield Ave, the next day, at around 8:15 pm?

Your argument (if I'm understanding it) is that all of the above is absolutely "safe," since I've stuck a question mark at the end of each accusation. I don't believe that this is the standard that courts use. (I do agree with you and John, when you both opined that accusing someone of being an incredible [ie, non-credible] witness on the stand is clearly giving a general opinion, and that this observation should indeed be protected speech.)

[Eugene Volokh]

The February decision, linked to in the post, has more on that.