Allegedly Tortious Disclosure of Candidate’s Sexual Assault Allegations in Judicial Campaign

From Judge Brian Davis (M.D. Fla.) in Shorstein v. Hardwick (M.D. Fla.):

The facts giving rise to this case follow Plaintiff’s claim of being sexually battered on April 20, 2018. Plaintiff was participating in her bachelorette party with dinner and drinks at several local bars. As her friends trickled away, Plaintiff remained and continued drinking alcohol. She could not recall the circumstances completely, but she remembered calling for an Uber and then being sexually assaulted in the passenger seat of a vehicle.

Plaintiff submitted to a sexual assault examination at the Family Life Center. Plaintiff also filed a police report and contacted Defendant Undersheriff Matthew Cline (“Cline”) to arrange for an interview between Plaintiff and law enforcement officers from the St. John’s Sheriff’s Office (“SJSO”).

Law enforcement officers began investigating Plaintiff’s claims immediately and were able to discover the alleged assailant’s name. Officers also interviewed the bartender serving Plaintiff immediately before the incident. The bartender stated that the pair were very close at the bar and may have been kissing before leaving together. Video and photographic evidence showed the two dancing and touching while at the bar.

The alleged assailant denied assaulting Plaintiff. He claimed that before leaving together the two kissed in his truck. As he was driving Plaintiff home, he claims she began touching his crotch before Plaintiff asked him to pull over where the pair engaged in what he described as consensual sexual intercourse.

He admitted to ripping Plaintiff’s panties when he pulled them to the side, and Plaintiff was photographed with injuries to her left wrist after the incident. Plaintiff left the vehicle and waived down another driver and awoke in that person’s car. Ultimately, Plaintiff declared that she did not want the investigation to go further once the alleged assailant was identified, and law enforcement ceased further efforts. Defendant Cline found the alleged assailant’s version of events to be more corroborated by the evidence.

Plaintiff expressed grave concern that her reporting of the alleged assault would circulate, and people would learn of the incident. Defendant Cline assured her that he would “lock it down.” Defendant Cline had the impression that Plaintiff was trying to communicate to him that the situation should not have happened but that it was not a sexual assault, and moreover, Plaintiff wanted no one finding out. The report was classified as “unfounded” and closed.

Despite the case’s closure, Defendant Cline contacted the Honorable Carlos Mendoza, United States District Court Judge, with whom he had previously worked when the pair were prosecutors. Defendant Cline described the situation to Judge Mendoza hoping to gain his honor’s opinion on whether he had done the right thing by closing the case—or alternatively, that he should close the case despite Plaintiff’s objection to continued investigation. Judge Mendoza then relayed the conversation he had with Defendant Cline to attorney Terry Shoemaker, who was left with the impression that Judge Mendoza was told by Defendant Cline that he did not believe Plaintiff’s account of April 20, 2018.

Defendant Cline also showed former Defendant Joshua Woolsey an unredacted copy of the report on June 9, 2022, after Joshua Woolsey made a public records request for all records pertaining to Plaintiff. Defendant Cline alerted Plaintiff before providing the report, and after litigation in state court over the report’s release, the state court ordered the release of the report publicly with the names and identifying information of the individuals in the report redacted. At the time the request was made, Joshua Woolsey’s wife, Casey Woolsey was running against Plaintiff for county judge. The evidence establishes that Joshua Woolsey had independent knowledge about the night of Plaintiff’s bachelorette party, which surprised Defendant Cline.

Defendant also disclosed the unredacted report to a county commissioner during a budget meeting with the Sherriff. Defendant Cline’s disclosure came amongst the ongoing state court litigation pertaining whether the report was subject to disclosure. Defendant Cline denied providing an unredacted report to the commissioner, but this testimony is contradicted by the deposition of the commissioner that said it was unredacted….

Plaintiff sued, and the remaining claims focused on Defendant Cline and his employer, the SJSO. Among other things, the court rejected the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim:

[T]here is no evidence that Defendants’ conduct was outrageous. Defending one’s position in a legal proceeding, such as in a state court proceeding, is almost never a basis for a finding of outrageous conduct—especially since the state court ultimately ordered the redacted release of the report. Moreover, Defendants disbelief of Plaintiff and disclosing their take on what occurred on April 20, 2018, do not defy the bounds of human decency.

While imperfect, Defendants’ disclosures to Judge Mendoza or even the county commissioner and Joshua Woolsey were not outrageous. No jury could find Defendant Cline’s effort to get advice from a former colleague and well-regarded member of the legal community as atrocious. Nor can a jury find the disclosure to the county commissioner intolerable since it was directly pertinent to ongoing litigation and the commissioner had already known of the events—and could have learned about them ultimately owing to the court’s ruling. The same can be said about the disclosure of Plaintiff’s name and information to Joshua Woolsey. The court ordered disclosure and the unredacted premature disclosure would have occurred but for Defendant Cline attempting to alert Plaintiff to Joshua Woolsey’s request.

And the court rejected plaintiff’s defamation claim:

By voluntarily entering the race for public office, Plaintiff is properly classified as a public figure. Plaintiff has adequately provided evidence that Defendants published statements[,] and the statements were false insomuch as they, among other things, claimed Plaintiff fabricated being sexually assaulted. On the record before the Court, a reasonable jury could find Plaintiff was sexually assaulted after her bachelorette party. A reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff willingly engaged in sexual intercourse with her alleged assailant. There is no way it can be conclusively proven what happened and no jury could say with the requisite specificity that either party was lying. As previously stated, there is also no evidence of actual malice.

Defendants are entitled to share their belief Plaintiff lied to cover up an act of infidelity. Plaintiff is free to respond that Defendants’ opinions are biased because of their relationship with Plaintiff’s political rivals. What is clear is that both positions are now opinions.

Plaintiff’s claim for defamation by implication fails for similar reasons. A claim for defamation by implication imposes liability on a defendant who “juxtaposes a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between them, or creates a defamatory implication by omitting facts[.]” This claim provides relief for an aggrieved party though the falsity element of a defamation claim is not technically met so long as the “gist” misleads the listener. Because there is no provable mistruth there is no defamation….

And the court added this:

Many of the counts are brought against Defendant Cline in his individual capacity. Florida only allows suit against officers or employees of state agencies (or its subdivisions) if the act was not within the scope of his employment or was done in “bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property.” As previously explained, Plaintiff has not offered evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that Defendant Cline acted in bad faith or with malice. His disclosure was, at worst, misguided and ultimately harmless.

A records request pertaining to Plaintiff was made when she declared herself a candidate for public office. The report was ordered to be released. Everyone knew who the alleged victim was despite redaction. Moreover, Defendant Cline went out of his way to alert Plaintiff before its release, which is why Plaintiff was even allowed to litigate its release in state court. This added protection was uniquely afforded to Plaintiff and does anything but show bad faith.

Finally, it is beyond dispute Defendant Cline came into possession of the report because of his role as a lawyer acting as undersheriff for SJSO. He disclosed that report to Judge Mendoza, the commissioner, and Joshua Woolsey in that role. Defendant Cline is protected in his individual capacity.

SJCO stands in a similar position, in so much as Plaintiff asserts an invasion of privacy. All disclosures in this case came through Defendants’ roles as law enforcement officers and cannot be used as basis for an invasion of privacy claim….

Gwendolyn P. Adkins and William B. Armistead (Coppins Monroe, P.A.) represent defendants.