Although Dr. Luke‘s defamation claims against Kesha await an actual trial next month, the singer won a victory on some key points in her counterclaim Tuesday from the New York Court of Appeals, which ruled that the producer qualifies as a public figure,. He thus will have a higher bar to hurdle in succeeding with his lawsuit against her.
The suit claims that the producer/songwriter legally known as Lukasz Gottwald was defamed by Kesha Sebert when she made public or legal statements accusing him of drugging and raping her in 2005, and when she additionally alleged that he had raped another singer.
In considering Dr. Luke’s level of fame, the court wrote that “we first consider whether Gottwald is a public figure such that he must prove the allegedly defamatory statements were made with ‘actual malice.’ If subject to that standard, Gottwald would be required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that each statement was made ‘with either knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard for the truth.'”
Related Stories
In overturning a previous ruling that established that Dr. Luke was not a public figure, the appeals court wrote that “we agree with the dissent… that Gottwald meets this standard and is a limited-purpose public figure. By 2014, when Gottwald initiated this defamation action, he was, by his own account, a celebrity — an acclaimed music producer who had achieved enormous success in a high-profile career. As self-described in the complaint, he ‘has written the most Number One songs of any songwriter ever’ and ‘was named by Billboard as one of the top ten producers of the decade in 2009.’ Gottwald’s engagement with the media was ‘obviously designed to project his name and personality’ before a wide audience to establish his reputation in this field.’ … As a result he must prove that Sebert’s allegedly defamatory statements were made with actual malice.”
Popular on Variety
The ruling was more mixed on whether Kesha had proven that 25 allegedly defamatory statements cited by Dr. Luke should be excluded from his lawsuit because they were covered by “the litigation privilege” in documents discussing the case. Here, the Court of Appeals agreed with Kesha on five of the statements but ruled that the other 20 could remain part of the suit.
The trial is set to begin July 19, after making its way through the legal system for nine years. The case first came about in 2014 when Kesha filed a court action in California asking for her contract with Dr. Luke to be voided because of the alleged rape. He denied all the charges and immediately filed the defamation suit in New York.
Dr. Luke’s lawyers claimed victory in the big picture, due to the latter part of the Court of Appeals’ decision.
“We are pleased that the Court of Appeals agreed with Dr. Luke that the vast majority of Ms. Sebert’s statements are properly the subject of his defamation claim,” said attorney Christine Lapera, on behalf of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, in a statement given to Variety. “Therefore, at trial, Ms. Sebert will be required to defend her harmful and long-standing press campaign against Mr. Gottwald. While the Court of Appeals is permitting Ms. Sebert to assert a counterclaim, it has been substantially narrowed. We are confident that this limited counterclaim will fail and be rejected in all events, just as we are fully confident that Mr. Gottwald will prevail at trial on his defamation claims.”
Yet there was another part of the appeals court’s Tuesday ruling that handed Kesha a win — or will give her one if she prevails in the coming trial. This court agreed that, under New York’s anti-SLAPP law, Kesha may be able to recover her attorneys’ fees and maybe even damages from Dr. Luke’s team if he fails to win at trial.
The court was firm in rejecting what it characterized as Dr. Luke’s contention that, however famous he might be, he should not qualify as a public figure if he had not commented on the specifics of the case in question.
Wrote the court: “Under that proposed standard, a public figure for limited purposes must comment on the specific topic that is the basis for the alleged defamatory statement — here, the sexual assault of young female artists in the pop industry by those with power to affect their careers. That is too narrow a view of limited-purpose public figures… It also conveniently ignores the nature of Kesha’s claims that she was the target of sexual abuse made possible by a power structure wherein artists — particularly women and other marginalized individuals — are treated as prey by those with power to make or break their careers. What person alleged to have sexually assaulted an artist would comment publicly on the value of such conduct? What individual with the power that Kesha alleges Dr. Luke exercises over his female clients would publicly acknowledge the alleged abusive nature of the relationship? It is only after the #MeToo movement that sexual harassment and abuse became the topic of a global public platform. Through the public commons of social media, the movement shone a light on the prevalence of sexual abuse in society generally, but also particularly within the entertainment industry. To adopt the narrow standard advocated by respondents would be to insulate powerful individuals in any given industry who are all but guaranteed never to comment publicly on the abusive power dynamics from which they benefit.”
The decision also explained overturning the previous ruling that the producer was not “a household name,” essentially saying that it depends on the household.
“The (prior court) determined that Dr. Luke was not a public figure based on the conclusion that he had not achieved the status of a ‘household name.’ That standard has its genesis in a line of First Department cases holding that the class of all-purpose public figures ‘generally consists of people who have achieved enough prominence in society that their names are tantamount to household words,’ as well as ‘political figures.’ But the First Department has not addressed the normative basis for determining whether an individual has achieved public figure status. Which and how many households count in making that determination? Perhaps the focus is on households with consumers of pop music and those who work in this industry. That appears to be the approach of the dissent below when it concluded that Dr. Luke ‘is a household name to those that matter.'”
Although some of Kesha’s fellow artists sided with her against Dr. Luke in the wake of the rape allegations she made years ago, or have quietly refrained from working with him, he continues to have a successful career — successful enough that he was named ASCAP’s songwriter of the year in May, based on performance data.
Kesha’s fifth studio album, “Gag Order,” was released in May — still through a joint agreement between RCA and Kemosabe Records, the Dr. Luke-founded label she tried to separate herself from going back to 2014.
