throbber
Case 2:21-cv-07408-VAP-SK Document 21 Filed 11/01/21 Page 1 of 33 Page ID #:108
`
`
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`ARWEN R. JOHNSON (SBN 247583)
` arwen.johnson@kslaw.com
`KELLY PERIGOE (SBN 268872)
` kperigoe@kslaw.com
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 443-4355
`Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
`
`Attorneys for Defendant NETFLIX, INC.
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`NONA GAPRINDASHVILI, an
`individual,
`
`
`v.
`
`NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware
`corporation, and DOES 1-50,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-07408-VAP-SK
`The Honorable Virginia A. Phillips
`Courtroom: 8A
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`(1) SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT UNDER CALIFORNIA’S
`ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE, OR, IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE, (2) MOTION TO
`DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE
`12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
`AND AUTHORITIES
`
`[Declarations of Scott Frank and Arwen
`R. Johnson with Exhibits; and Proposed
`Order filed concurrently herewith]
`
`Date: January 24, 2022
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Judge: The Honorable Virginia A. Phillips
`
`Action Filed: September 16, 2021
`Trial Date: Not Set
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07408-VAP-SK Document 21 Filed 11/01/21 Page 2 of 33 Page ID #:109
`
`
`
`
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 24, 2022 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon
`thereafter as the matter may be heard before the Honorable Virginia A. Phillips of the
`above-entitled Court, located at United States Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, Los
`Angeles, CA 90012, Courtroom 8A, Defendant Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) will and hereby
`does move the Court (the “Motion”) (1) to strike the claims asserted against Netflix in
`the First Amended Complaint (the “FAC” (ECF No. 11)) of Plaintiff Nona
`Gaprindashvili (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, California
`Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 et seq.; or (2) to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC, with
`prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
`
`The grounds for the Motion are that (1) Plaintiff’s FAC targets activity protected
`under the anti-SLAPP statute and Plaintiff cannot meet her burden of establishing a
`probability of success on any of her claims; and (2) Plaintiff in any event has failed to
`plausibly allege any claim for relief.
`
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum
`of Points and Authorities, the accompanying Declarations of Scott Frank and Arwen R.
`Johnson and attached exhibits, the pleadings and records on file in this case, all matters
`of which the Court may take judicial notice, and such other or further material as may
`be presented at or before the hearing on the Motion. This Motion is made following the
`conference of counsel pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, which took place on October 25,
`2021. (Declaration of Arwen R. Johnson (“Johnson Decl.”), ¶ 7.)
`
`DATED: November 1, 2021
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`ARWEN R. JOHNSON
`KELLY PERIGOE
`
`By: /s/ Arwen R. Johnson
`ARWEN R. JOHNSON
` Attorneys for NETFLIX, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`I.
`II.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................... 4
`A. The Series ....................................................................................................... 4
`B. Plaintiff’s Allegations .................................................................................... 6
`C. The Creative Process and Context of the Line .............................................. 7
`III. THE FAC SHOULD BE STRICKEN UNDER CALIFORNIA’S ANTI-
`SLAPP STATUTE ................................................................................................. 8
`A. The Complaint Assails Netflix’s Protected Activity ..................................... 9
`B. Plaintiff Cannot Establish That She Will Probably Prevail on the
`Merits of Her Claims ................................................................................... 11
`1.
`The Series Is a Fictional Work That A Reasonable Viewer
`Would Not Construe as Conveying Objective Fact ............................ 12
`2. A Reasonable Viewer Would Not Draw the Negative Implication
`that Plaintiff Alleges ........................................................................... 15
`The Allegedly Defamatory Statement Does Not Constitute
`Defamation Per Se, and Plaintiff Cannot Satisfy the Special-
`Damages Element of a Defamation Per Quod Claim ......................... 18
`The Gist of the Line is Substantially True .......................................... 21
`Plaintiff Cannot Prove Actual Malice by Clear and Convincing
`Evidence .............................................................................................. 23
`IV. ALTERNATIVELY, THE FAC SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH
`PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`UNDER RULE 12(b)(6) ...................................................................................... 25
`V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-07408-VAP-SK Document 21 Filed 11/01/21 Page 3 of 33 Page ID #:110
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S SPECIAL MOT. TO STRIKE AND MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07408-VAP-SK Document 21 Filed 11/01/21 Page 4 of 33 Page ID #:111
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Annette F. v. Sharon S.,
`119 Cal.App.4th 1146 (2004) .................................................................................. 25
`Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner,
`42 Cal.3d 254 (1986) ............................................................................................... 17
`Balla v. Hall,
`59 Cal.App.5th 652 (2021) .................................................................... 11, 17, 18, 19
`Barnes-Hind, Inc. v. Super. Ct.,
`181 Cal.App.3d 377 (1986) ..................................................................................... 19
`Bartholomew v. YouTube, LLC,
`17 Cal.App.5th 1217 (2017) .................................................................................... 21
`Bradbury v. Superior Court,
`49 Cal.App.4th 1108 (1996) .................................................................................... 11
`Braun v. Chronicle Publ’g Co.,
`52 Cal.App.4th 1036 (1997) .................................................................................... 22
`Brodeur v. Atlas Entm’t, Inc.,
`248 Cal.App.4th 665 (2016) ........................................................................ 10, 11, 17
`De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC,
`21 Cal.App.5th 845 (2018) ............................................................................... passim
`Dougherty v. City of Covina,
`654 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................... 4, 25
`Fellows v. Nat’l Enquirer, Inc.,
`42 Cal.3d 234 (1986) ............................................................................................... 18
`Films of Distinction, Inc. v. Allegro Film Prods., Inc.,
`12 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ..................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`ii
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S SPECIAL MOT. TO STRIKE AND MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07408-VAP-SK Document 21 Filed 11/01/21 Page 5 of 33 Page ID #:112
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gallagher v. Philipps,
`No. 20-CV-993 JLS (BLM), 2021 WL 4428996 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 27,
`2021) ........................................................................................................................ 19
`Good Gov’t Grp. Of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Super. Ct. of L.A. Cnty.,
`22 Cal.3d 672 (1978) ............................................................................................... 24
`Greater L.A. Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Cable News Network, Inc.,
`742 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................... 8
`Guccione v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.,
`800 F.2d 298 (2d Cir. 1986) .................................................................................... 22
`Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Prods.,
`25 Cal.3d 860 (1979) ......................................................................................... 12, 14
`Harkonen v. Fleming,
`880 F.Supp.2d 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ....................................................................... 8
`Heller v. NBC Universal, Inc.,
`No. CV-15-09631-MWF-KS, 2016 WL 6583048 (C.D. Cal. June 29,
`2016) .................................................................................................................. 17, 21
`Hughes v. Hughes,
`122 Cal.App.4th 931 (2004) .................................................................................... 22
`Issa v. Applegate,
`31 Cal.App.5th 689 (2019) ...................................................................................... 12
`Khodorkovskaya v. Gay,
`5 F.4th 80 (D.C. Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................... 13
`Klingebiel v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.,
`494 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1974) (per curiam) ................................................................ 9
`Marder v. Lopez,
`450 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................... 8
`Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.,
`501 U.S. 496 (1991)....................................................................................... 3, 13, 21
`McGarry v. Univ. of San Diego,
`154 Cal.App.4th 97 (2007) ............................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`iii
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S SPECIAL MOT. TO STRIKE AND MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07408-VAP-SK Document 21 Filed 11/01/21 Page 6 of 33 Page ID #:113
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick,
`264 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................... 8
`Mossack Fonseca v. Netflix Inc.,
`No. CV 19-9330-CBM-AS(x), 2020 WL 8510342 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23,
`2020) .............................................................................................................. 9, 13, 15
`Navellier v. Sletten,
`29 Cal.4th 82 (2002) .................................................................................................. 8
`Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula,
`159 Cal.App.4th 1027 (2008) ............................................................................ 10, 16
`Partington v. Bugliosi,
`56 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................... 2, 13, 15, 17
`Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress,
`890 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................... 8
`Sarver v. Hurt Locker LLC,
`No. 2:10-CV-09034-JHN, 2011 WL 11574477 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13,
`2011) ........................................................................................................................ 12
`Sarver v. Chartier,
`813 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................... 12
`Seelig v. Infinity Broad. Corp.,
`97 Cal.App.4th 798 (2002) ...................................................................................... 10
`Summit Bank v. Rogers,
`206 Cal.App.4th 669 (2012) .............................................................................. 21, 22
`Tamkin v. CBS Broad., Inc.,
`193 Cal.App.4th 133 (2011) .................................................................... 9, 10, 11, 14
`Thomas v. Fry’s Electronics, Inc.,
`400 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................... 8
`Underwager v. Channel 9 Austl.,
`69 F.3d 361 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................. 2, 15
`Vogel v. Felice,
`127 Cal.App.4th 1006 (2005) ...................................................................... 16, 17, 22
`
`
`
`iv
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S SPECIAL MOT. TO STRIKE AND MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07408-VAP-SK Document 21 Filed 11/01/21 Page 7 of 33 Page ID #:114
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Winter v. DC Comics,
`30 Cal.4th 881 (2003) ................................................................................................ 9
`Statutes
`Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 48a(d)(2) .............................................................................. 3, 19
`Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 ........................................................................................ 1
`Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(a) .............................................................................. 8, 11
`Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(3)–(4) ........................................................................ 9
`Other Authorities
`Inna Lazareva, Georgian women ruled chess in the Soviet era. A new
`generation chases the same ‘Queen’s Gambit’ glory, Washington
`Post, Dec. 13, 2020 .................................................................................................. 20
`Sammy Reshevsky, The Art of Positional Play, Chess Life & Review 217
`(April 1977) ............................................................................................................. 23
`Nona Gaprindashvili – Legendary Chess Careers, a book written by
`Tibor Karolyi, based on interviews with Plaintiff, published by Chess
`Evolution on January 1, 2016 .............................................................................. 7, 20
`March 2020 documentary entitled “Glory to the Queen” .................................. 7, 20, 24
`Netflix limited series “The Queen’s Gambit” ....................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S SPECIAL MOT. TO STRIKE AND MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07408-VAP-SK Document 21 Filed 11/01/21 Page 8 of 33 Page ID #:115
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`In October 2020, Netflix released The Queen’s Gambit (the “Series”), a critically-
`acclaimed, popular fictional limited series based on a 1983 novel of the same name.
`Plaintiff Nona Gaprindashvili, an elite chess competitor, asserts claims against Netflix
`arising from a line of dialogue in the Series finale. Because Plaintiff’s meritless claims
`are designed to threaten free speech, as forbidden by the California legislature, they
`should be stricken or, alternatively, dismissed.
`The Series follows the rise of fictional protagonist Elizabeth Harmon, a chess
`prodigy, through the male-dominated world of elite chess during the Cold War era.
`Plaintiff’s allegations arise from a short scene in the Series finale, set 53 years ago in
`1968 at the fictional “Moscow Invitational,” in which a chess announcer speculates that
`Harmon’s male competitors at that tournament likely would not have adequately
`prepared to face her. The fictional announcer remarks during his commentary that
`Harmon’s opponents might be familiar with Plaintiff, but “she’s the female world
`champion and has never faced men” (the “Line”). Plaintiff alleges the Line is inaccurate
`by a few years and therefore false, defamatory, and highly offensive to a reasonable
`person. In her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), she asserts claims against Netflix
`under California law for (1) false light invasion of privacy and (2) defamation per se.
`Plaintiff’s claims are unavailing and should be stricken under California’s anti-
`SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, or in the alternative, dismissed with
`prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. As a threshold matter,
`Plaintiff’s claims arise directly from Netflix’s exercise of its constitutional right of free
`speech in connection with a public issue. The Line is a part of a fictional television
`series that addresses a number of significant matters of public interest, including the
`challenges women faced competing in the male-dominated world of elite chess during
`the 1960s. Netflix easily meets its burden on the first step of the analysis. See De
`Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC, 21 Cal.App.5th 845, 849-50 (2018).
`1
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S SPECIAL MOT. TO STRIKE AND MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07408-VAP-SK Document 21 Filed 11/01/21 Page 9 of 33 Page ID #:116
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Plaintiff thus must show that her claims are legally sufficient and factually
`substantiated to meet her burden at step two. Plaintiff cannot meet this burden because
`she cannot prove a probability of prevailing on her claims for each of the following,
`independent reasons:
`First, Plaintiff cannot show that a reasonable viewer of the Series would construe
`the Line as conveying a statement of objective fact, as required for both of her claims.
`Television shows often portray real people, but such people “do [] not own history” or
`“have the legal right to control, dictate, approve, disapprove, or veto the creator’s
`portrayal of actual people.” De Havilland, 21 Cal.App.5th at 849–50. The Line consists
`of speculation by a fictional chess announcer, about how fictional players might have
`prepared for a fictional tournament, in a fictional series, based on a novel. Even in more
`difficult cases involving works of historical fiction or docudramas—which the Series is
`not—courts recognize that viewers are “sufficiently familiar with this genre to avoid
`assuming that all statements within them represent assertions of verifiable facts.”
`Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1155 (9th Cir. 1995); see also De Havilland, 21
`Cal.App.5th at 866 (granting anti-SLAPP motion to strike defamation and false light
`claims by actress about statements in a docudrama).
`Second, the Line is not defamatory, or even disparaging. It could only be
`construed as reflecting negatively on Plaintiff’s abilities if a reasonable viewer would
`interpret it as insinuating that Plaintiff had not faced men as of 1968 because she was
`“inferior” and not capable of doing so. But that is an inference no reasonable viewer
`would draw from the Line or the tenor of the Series, which is about the challenges a
`female prodigy faces in the gender-segregated chess world. Underwager v. Channel 9
`Austl., 69 F.3d 361, 366–67 (9th Cir. 1995). As the Series powerfully illustrates, there
`are many non-defamatory reasons (bias, gender segregation, etc.) why someone as
`skilled as Plaintiff might not have faced men as of 1968.
`Third, although she styles her defamation claim as one for defamation per se, the
`defamatory implication that Plaintiff alleges depends on viewers being familiar with the
`2
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S SPECIAL MOT. TO STRIKE AND MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07408-VAP-SK Document 21 Filed 11/01/21 Page 10 of 33 Page ID #:117
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`opportunities for female chess players in the Soviet Union in 1968. Such facts are not
`common knowledge. See McGarry v. Univ. of San Diego, 154 Cal.App.4th 97, 112
`(2007). Accordingly, her claim is properly construed as a claim of defamation per quod,
`see Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 48a(d)(2), which requires Plaintiff to plead and prove special
`damages (i.e., economic losses) caused by the Line. As detailed below, she cannot do
`so. At most, the Line is about a moment in time that has no bearing on the decades of
`her career successes that followed and would not cause Plaintiff to experience lost
`economic opportunities.
`Fourth, Plaintiff’s claims also fail for the simple reason that the “gist or sting”
`of the Line is substantially true. See Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S.
`496, 517 (1991) (“Minor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity so long as the substance,
`the gist, the sting of the libelous charge be justified.”). Plaintiff does not and cannot
`allege that she faced men in prestigious Soviet tournaments before 1968—i.e., the gist
`of the Line as delivered in the context of the scene. Plaintiff alleges that she began
`facing men in a couple of tournaments a few years earlier, but none of those
`competitions were Soviet tournaments like the fictional “Moscow Invitational” in which
`Harmon competes in the Series finale. Moreover, the difference between 1963 and
`1968 amounts to, at most, a minor inaccuracy in timing that is not actionable.
`Fifth, Plaintiff, a public figure, cannot meet her burden to prove that Netflix acted
`with the requisite actual malice. Plaintiff’s malice theory ignores that in adapting the
`novel for television, the Series’ creator removed the disparaging statement that she was
`“not up to the level of” the fictional Moscow Invitational, and added the express
`recognition that she was the female world champion. The creator, moreover, relied on
`two chess experts to confirm the historical chess details of the screenplay adaptation.
`The Series’ reference to Plaintiff was intended to recognize her, not disparage her. She
`cannot establish through clear and convincing evidence that Netflix acted “in the hope
`of insinuating a defamatory import.” De Havilland, 21 Cal.App.5th at 869-70.
`The First Amendment protects the creator’s artistic license to include the Line in
`3
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S SPECIAL MOT. TO STRIKE AND MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07408-VAP-SK Document 21 Filed 11/01/21 Page 11 of 33 Page ID #:118
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`the fictional Series. Because Plaintiff cannot meet her anti-SLAPP burden, the FAC
`must be dismissed with prejudice.
`Alternatively, for the reasons set forth in Sections III.B.1–4 below—all of which
`can be decided based on the FAC and Series alone—Plaintiff fails to state a claim for
`relief under Rule 12(b)(6). Because no amount of repleading could transform the Line
`into actionable defamation, the claims should be dismissed without leave to amend. See
`Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 901 (9th Cir. 2011).
`II.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`The Series
`A.
`Netflix released the Series to its members in October 2020 through its online
`
`streaming service. (FAC ¶ 34.) The Series was a critical success and was widely
`viewed. (Id.) It is a seven-episode limited series adapted by director and producer Scott
`Frank from a 1983 novel of the same name by Walter Tevis. (Johnson Decl., Ex. 1
`(“Ex. 1”), e.g., Ep. 1 at 56:43; see also Declaration of Scott Frank (“Frank Decl.”), ¶¶ 1,
`3–4.) The Series tells the story of the fictional Elizabeth Harmon. It follows Harmon’s
`life and career as an orphan who becomes a chess prodigy and later a star chess player
`in the male-dominated and largely gender-segregated chess world of the 1960s, while
`she grapples with addiction and finds her support system. (Ex. 1; Frank Decl., ¶¶ 4, 14–
`15.) The Series explores themes of drug addiction, chosen family, the cost of genius,
`the rejection of gender norms, and the value of collectivism over individualism in the
`context of the Cold War. (Ex. 1; Frank Decl., ¶ 4.)
`The Series, like the novel, is a work of fiction. (Ex. 1, Ep. 1 at 57:59; Frank
`Decl., ¶ 5.) Harmon is a fictional character. (Id.) Her chess opponents and the
`tournaments in which she competes are fictional. (Id.) The Series, however, includes
`references to real events and people to enhance the realism. (Frank Decl., ¶ 6.) To that
`end, Bruce Pandolfini, one of the premier chess teachers in the world (and Tevis’s chess
`consultant during the writing of the novel), and Garry Kasparov, a former world
`champion and expert in Soviet chess during the relevant era, consulted on the adaption
`4
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S SPECIAL MOT. TO STRIKE AND MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07408-VAP-SK Document 21 Filed 11/01/21 Page 12 of 33 Page ID #:119
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`of the Series and reviewed the scripts. (Id. ¶ 19.)
`While the Series largely adheres to the novel, additional context for each chess
`tournament was necessary to set the emotional stakes for the Series and Harmon’s rise
`to predominance in the chess world to ensure that the Series was sufficiently engaging
`for a viewer of a dramatic, fictional, television series. (Frank Decl., ¶¶ 7–8.) For
`example, the prestige and prominence of the tournaments in which Harmon competes
`steadily increase throughout the Series. (Id. ¶ 8; see generally Ex. 1.) Harmon first
`competes in a local tournament, held in her Kentucky hometown. (Ex. 1, Ep. 2 at 27:05–
`28:01, 32:40–34:45; Frank Decl. ¶ 9.) She goes on to play tournaments in Cincinnati,
`Pittsburgh, Houston, Las Vegas, and Mexico City. (Ex. 1, Ep. 3 at 1:34–10:00
`(Cincinnati), 10:35–13:38 (Pittsburgh and Houston), 22:54–41:00 (Las Vegas); id., Ep.
`4 at 9:50–11:40 (Mexico City); Frank Decl., ¶ 8.) Near the end of the Series, Harmon
`competes in even more prestigious and exclusive tournaments: the U.S. Championship
`in Ohio, which she wins; and a Paris invitational. (Ex. 1, Ep. 5 at 27:38–41:40 (Ohio);
`id., Ep. 6 at 19:45–33:40 (Paris); Frank Decl., ¶ 8) Because of her status as reigning
`U.S. Champion, Harmon is invited to compete in the fictional 1968 Moscow
`Invitational. (Ex. 1, Ep. 5 at 42:23–48; Ep. 7 at 26:35–29:52.)
`The fictional Moscow Invitational is portrayed as a highly prestigious
`tournament, as the Soviets were the pinnacle of competitive chess at that time. (Ex. 1,
`Ep. 5 at 41:40–45:27; id., Ep. 6 at 7:10–9:40; Frank Decl., ¶ 10.) The Series also depicts
`sexism and gender-segregation in the male-dominated world of 1960s chess. (Frank
`Decl., ¶ 4.) In Harmon’s first tournament, the male organizers discourage her from
`competing due to the lack of a women’s section. (Ex. 1, Ep. 2 at 33:06–34:02.) Later,
`reporters ask her how it feels “to be a girl among all those men” (Ex. 1, Ep. 3 at 13:50–
`14:23), and when a stranger asks if she is the “U.S. Women’s Champion,” she replies,
`“U.S. Open Co-Champion,” a genderless title. (Ex. 1, Ep. 4 at 1:27–43.)
`At the culminating Moscow Invitational, referred to as the “Tournament of
`Champions,” (Ex. 1, Ep. 7 at 30:36), Harmon is the only American and the only female
`5
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S SPECIAL MOT. TO STRIKE AND MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07408-VAP-SK Document 21 Filed 11/01/21 Page 13 of 33 Page ID #:120
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`chess player. (Id. at 28:25–30:02.) Nevertheless, Harmon triumphs over her internal
`demons, and the low expectations for her based on her nationality and gender, to win
`the tournament by drawing on her chosen family of American chess players for support.
`(Id. at 51:37–59:54.)
`
`The end credits of every episode expressly state that the Series is “based upon the
`novel of Walter Tevis” immediately after identifying the director, screenwriter, and
`creators. (Ex. 1, Ep. 1 at 56:43; Ep. 2 at 1:02:29; Ep. 3 at 43:35; Ep. 4 at 46:04; Ep. 5
`at 45:36; Ep. 6 at 57:21; Ep. 7 at 1:04:52; Frank Decl., ¶ 5.) The credits also note:
`[T]he characters and events depicted in this program are fictitious. No
`depiction of actual persons or events is intended.
`
`(Ex. 1, Ep. 1 at 57:59; Ep. 2 at 1:03:51; Ep. 3 at 45:01; Ep. 4 at 47:20; Ep. 5 at 46:59;
`Ep. 6 at 58:46; Ep. 7 at 1:06:03.)
`Plaintiff’s Allegations
`B.
`Plaintiff’s FAC for defamation per se and false light is based on a single reference
`
`to her in a line of dialogue in one episode of the Series. While Harmon is playing in the
`Moscow Invitational, a tournament announcer says of her opponents:
`As far as they knew, Harmon’s level of play wasn’t up to theirs. Someone
`like Laev probably didn’t spend a lot of time preparing for their match.
`Elizabeth Harmon’s not at all an important player by their standards. The
`only unusual thing about her, really, is her sex. And even that’s not unique
`in Russia. There’s Nona Gaprindashvili, but she’s the female world
`champion and has never faced men. My guess is Laev was expecting an
`easy win, and not at all the 27-move thrashing Beth Harmon just gave him.
`(Ex. 1, Ep. 7 at 29:45–30:31; FAC ¶ 5) (emphasis added).
`Plaintiff alleges that by “impugning that she did not face men, or was inferior to
`men,” the Line is “manifestly defamatory.” (Id. ¶ 77.) She alleges that the Line is false
`because she had played matches against male chess players by 1968. (Id. ¶ 7.) The
`FAC does not allege, however, that Plaintiff had competed against men in a prestigious
`Soviet competition before 1968. Her most notable chess competitions against men and
`co-ed titles, as identified in the FAC, took place after 1968, including Plaintiff’s tie for
`
`
`
`6
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S SPECIAL MOT. TO STRIKE AND MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07408-VAP-SK Document 21 Filed 11/01/21 Page 14 of 33 Page ID #:121
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`second place at Sandomierz in 1976, tie for first place at Lone Pine in 1977, and tie for
`second place at Dortmund in 1978. (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff alleges that she became the first
`woman to be awarded the title of “Grandmaster” in 1978, as a result of her 1977 Lone
`Pine performance. (Id. ¶ 28.)
`The Creative Process and Context of the Line
`C.
`The screenwriter who adapted the novel for the Series included the Line to
`
`emphasize the male-dominated, gender-segregated world of 1960s chess, especially in
`the Soviet Union, in furtherance of the Series’ narrative arc. (Frank Decl., ¶¶ 13-15.)
`The Line was changed from the following statement by the novel’s narrator:
`As far as they knew, [Harmon’s] level of play was roughly that of Benny
`Watts, and men like Laev would not devote much time to preparation for
`playing Benny. She was not an important player by their standards; the
`only unusual thing about her was her sex; and even that wasn’t unique in
`Russia. There was Nona Gaprindashvili, not up to the level of this
`tournament, but a player who had met all these Russian Grandmasters
`many times before. Laev would be expecting an easy win.
`(FAC ¶ 3.) The Line thus deviates from the novel by shifting the reason the fictional,
`male Soviet chess players would not have faced Plaintiff from her “not [being] up to
`the level of this tournament”—a disparaging comment (that Plaintiff does not think is
`defamatory (id. ¶ 64))—to her being the “female world champion.” In making this
`change, the screenwriter did not intend to disparage Plaintiff, but rather to recognize her
`status, in 1968, as the reigning Women’s World Champion. (Frank Decl., ¶ 18.)
`In adapting the screenplay, the screenwriter and his team spent many hours
`researching chess and consulting with chess experts Pandolfini and Kasparov. (Frank
`Decl., ¶ 19.) All of the scripts for the Series were provided to Pandolfini and Kasparov
`to review for accuracy, and neither expert identified any issue with the Line. (Id. at
`¶ 20.) Indeed, the most widely available information about Plaintiff described her as a
`long-reigning female world champion whose most notable success among me

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket