Diva under fire

We were assigned a hilarious case for Civil Procedure starring the one (and only) Diana Ross.

“You want to take me on? Briiiiing it!”

Diana Ross was sued by Gail Davis, a former personal-assistant for libel based on this letter from Ross:
To whom it may concern:

The following people are no longer in my employment:

• Carol Acquisto
• Deedy (Dorothy) Collins
• Susan Stratton
• Karen & Scott Webster
• Robin Bell
• Beth Pearl Kraft
• Gail Davis

If I let an employee go, it’s because either their work or their personal habits are not acceptable to me. I do not recommend these people. In fact, if you hear from these people, and they use my name as a reference, I wish to be contacted.

/s/ Diana Ross
Davis is suing for one million dollars in compensatory damages and one million dollars in punitive damages.

The district court granted Ross’s motion to dismiss on the ground that, as a matter of law, the text of the letter was not libelous because it only expressed Ross’s personal dissatisfaction with her former employees.

The appeals court reversed this decision because it found that the letter was susceptible to several interpretations.

The case came before the current court over discovery battle.

The assistant wants three things: 1) information about Ross’s net worth and annual income, 2) documents reflecting billings and payments Ross made to her lawyers, and 3) the names of other employees who have complained about the defendant, and the nature of their complaints.

The court gave a big-fat “DENIED” to each of the requests.

On the financial records:
Davis argues that the rule of Rupert v. Sellers should not govern this case because she entered into a confidentiality order which, she says, should eliminate any concern for privacy on defendant’s part. Defendant responds, quite rightly, that the existence of a confidentiality order does not undermine the rationale of Rupert v. Sellers. Ross should not be compelled to disclose private facts to anyone -even to someone who has agreed to keep the information confidential-until it is found that plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

“I’m not being shady (despite having 2 pairs)… my money’s just none of yo’business okay?”

On the attorneys fees:
Even where a witness’ entire livelihood derives from employment by the party for whom he testifies, courts have declined to infer bias from the mere fact of employment. In this case, the court is especially reluctant to pry into the details of the attorney-client relationship or to order burdensome discovery. Consequently, plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of legal fees is denied.

On the employee records:
Whether Ross is a “good” or “bad” employer, popular or unpopular with employees, is not probative of whether Davis’ personal or work habits were objectively satisfactory. Even if other employees have complained about Ross, that would not affect a jury’s assessment of Davis’ personal or work habits one way or the other. The issue in this case is whether Ross libeled Davis, and the material plaintiff seeks to discover does not bear on that.
So Davis is 0-3. Now Ross pulls out her own discovery request: Ross wants Davis’s mental health records!

Davis saw a shrink during her employment, and is now asking for millions in pain and suffering. So Ross says (essentially), “Okay, you put your mental state out there, I want to see your crazy papers!”

“You want CRAZY? I’LL SHOW YOU CRAZY!”

And the court says:
Moreover, the amount of damages will always be in issue; plaintiff seeks one million dollars in compensatory damages, and evidence must be introduced to demonstrate that the award should be more than nominal. [cites a case] (it is assumed that defamation causes some damage though it be nominal). Plaintiff may not sue to recover for mental pain and anguish, only to deny the defendant the evidence she needs to argue that there was no damage, or that the amount of compensation sought is excessive. …
Accordingly, defendant’s motion to compel discovery of plaintiff’s treatment by a psychiatrist is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
PWNED. Ross 4-0.

“Now I shall destroy, bring her to me! I’ll will demolish her instantly!”

* Davis v. Ross, 107 F.R.D. 326 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)