Summary #
NB: annotations are in the following format page.line
The Court’s ruling opens with a summary of the case (1-2.17) followed by the filings by S’s Lawyers (2.19 - 3) and Vivka’s (4-6.18). The document proceeds with a summary of Factual Background (6.20-11.11) before moving into the points on which the two sides disagree (the ‘disputed facts of the case’) (11.13-12.9), and concluding with the legal definition of libel (12.11-13.5).
The case centers on eight Statements (9.6-9.17) made by Vivka. Of these, the Court concluded that Statement 8 (“In light of the foregoing, Grey concludes that S is ‘downright cruel’-a monster,in her words-while portraying herself as his innocent victim; ‘I was groomed, I was gaslighted,’ she says.”) was non-actionable (14.23- 15.3) given further technical considerations (13.7-14.7). The Court concluded that Statements One through Seven are actionable (14.8-14.22). The legal requirements for falsity are then summarized, before the Court addresses each of the relevant Statements (15.5-15.20). Of the seven actionable statements, the Court concluded that Statement One met the legal definition of libel, awarding S one dollar in damages.
Further discussion of each individual statement follows:
Statement One #
He knew I was in a rough financial situation, and he forced me to move in with him
Statement One is addressed from (15.22-18.3), and is worth reading in full. The Court’s primary reasoning turns on the definition of the term ‘force.’ (16.5-16.9). The Court noted that S’s behavior ‘is far from resorting to physical compulsion’ (16.19), and found the opposing argument, that “force” contains a subjective component, unavailing (16.21-17.25). It concluded that “the Court finds that [Redacted] have proven that Grey failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth of falsity of her statement concerning ‘forcing [Grey] to move in with [redacted], and the statement is not substantially true” (18.1-18.3).
Statement Two #
S expected Grey to “be at his beck and call for sex, at any time with any service”
Statement Two is addressed from (18.5-19.15). The Court found that “Grey has demonstrated that Statement Two and all of its subparts are true” (19.14-19.15). The Court credited Vivka and Mandy’s testimony (18.6-18.20), which it found was also corroborated by [Redacted]’s testimony (18.21-25). [Redacted]’s objection to the ruling (19.1-19.4) was unavailing (19.5-19.13).
Statement Three #
S demanded that Grey engage in particular sex acts with him, commanding “’now you will do it with me’ Even if I didn’t enjoy it the first time” (sic)
Statement Three is addressed from (19.16-20.14). The Court found that “Grey has demonstrated that Statement Three is true” (20.14). The Court found Grey “has provided ample support for the factual basis for this statement” (19.23) which is summarized (19.25-20.13).
Statement Four #
S threatened to kick Grey “out of the house if [she] didn’t perform for him” (sic)
Statement Four is addressed from (20.15-22.4). The Court found “Grey has demonstrated Statement Four is true” (22.4) Statement Four opens noting S took “Statement Four out of context and characterized the quote… as a threat when in fact the context… makes clear that Grey was describing what initially started as a joke…. Even when [it] no longer felt like a joke to Grey” (21.1-21.5). Regardless the Court found “ample evidentiary support for Grey’s attribution” (21.6-21.7) including Grey’s credible testimony (21.10) and Nagy’s (21.12-21.17) and S’ ‘Ultimatum’ which he did not deny (21.18-21.20) which is summarized (21.21-22.3)
Statement Five #
“I remember sometimes the sex would hurt, and he’d tell me I just had to ’loosen up’ and shoving a pillow in my face to bite and cry into while he continued”
Statement Five is addressed from 22.5-23.19. The Court found “Grey has demonstrated that Statement Five is true” (23.19). This is based on Grey and Nagy’s credible corroborating testimony (22.10-23.2) and S’s testimony (23.3-23.4). While S introduced intimate texts and emails arguing they “impeach Grey’s testimony” (23.4-7); the Court was “not persuaded” as Statement Five wasn’t universal in scope (23.7-23.9) and Grey expressly qualified Statement Five concerned “events that only occurred sometimes” (23.13-23.14) and found it “not terribly surprising” these experiences were not shared publicly given S’s reactions to refusal or stoppage by sexual partners and his prominence (23.14-23.18).
Statement Six #
S also coerced Grey “to have sex with other people of his choosing” and “never allowed [her] to pursue anything with anyone I felt an interest in”
Statement Six is addressed from 23.21-26.3. The Court found “Grey has demonstrated that Statement Six is true” (26.3). The Court divided Statement Six into two subparts (24.3-24.5):
- S ‘pressured’ Grey to have sex with other people of S’ choosing and
- S did not allow Grey to pursue her romantic interest in individuals
The Court found “the evidence demonstrates a factual basis for Grey’s [claim]” regarding both subparts.
In analyzing the evidence for (1), the Court noted that S’s complaint substituted “coerced” for “pressured” (a reasonably subjective term) and that (1) did not imply this took place, only that Grey was pressured (24.6-24.14). This is supported by the evidence introduced in the trial, including Grey’s testimony, (24.15-21) particularly one incident corroborated with testimony (24.22-25.14). This leads the Court to conclude “Grey used reasonable care to determine the truth of her statement” (25.15-16).
When analyzing (2), the court found that Grey “also presented substantial evidence… of the veracity of her statement” given her relationship with MB (25.17-26.2). This includes confirmation by S’s own testimony that he “felt threatened by MB and specifically forbade Grey from ever seeing or talking to [him]” (25.22-25.23).
Statement Seven #
After “months of him telling me how ‘unfortunate’ and ‘pointless’ my natural body happened to be,” S pressured Grey to obtain breast implants, which he bought for her.
Statement Seven is addressed from 26.4-28.11. The Court found “Grey has demonstrated that Statement Seven is true” (28.11). S’s complaint mischaracterized Grey as stating “S pressured her to obtain breast implants” (26.11-12) rather Grey explicitly stated she wanted bigger breasts (26.12-15). The Statement does accurately attribute two statements to Grey (26.16-19):
- S made months of degrading comments concerning Grey’s body and
- S bought Grey her first breast implants for her birthday.
When analyzing (1) the Court found Nagy and Grey’s testimony consistent regarding S’ commentary about women’s bodies and Grey’s in particular (26.20-27.12). S’s attempts to impeach this testimony with SRs was found unavailing (27.13-19).
When analyzing (2), the testimony (27.20-28.10) led the Court to conclude S’s claims of upset “simply not credible” and it is “undisputed that [Redacted] contributed to buying Grey her first breast implants” (28.10).
This is followed by discussions of Actual Malice (28.12-31.4) and Damages (31.6-36.14) followed by rulings on Grey’s complaint concerning S (36.16-37.6) before ruling on the truth and falsity of S’ statements, two of which are credit as true (37.12-13, 37.14-15) and eleven false (37.18-39.14) given the court’s reasoning (39.15-40.12) they “do not qualify as libel” followed by additional considerations concerning Damages (40.14-42.14) and the parties’ objections to the rulings (42.16-43.4) followed by a Conclusion (43.6-43.16).