Having previously been granted $250,000 in attorneys’ fees, after a judge granted their motion to dismiss — on free-speech grounds — a lawsuit brought by a sexual wellness company, Netflix is now asking to be compensated for more than a half million dollars in attorneys’ fees and costs related to victories over OneTaste Inc. on appeal.
The lawsuit involved a Netflix documentary that alleged an employee of OneTaste was raped and beaten. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Holly J. Fujie heard arguments on Netflix’s anti-SLAPP motion in April 2024, took the case under submission and granted the motion three days later. The state’s anti-SLAPP law is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
In September 2024, the judge granted Netflix $251,870 in attorneys’ fees, plus $3,780 in costs. Fujie has since retired and the new bench officer, Judge Steven A. Ellis, is tasked during a scheduled May 6 hearing on whether to grant Netflix’s new request for about $545,000 in attorneys’ fees and another $1,750 in costs related to Netflix’s successful fight against two appeals. The state Supreme Court denied OneTaste’s request for review.
“OneTaste’s fruitless pursuit of its defamation action has consequences, as the anti-SLAPP statute mandates the recovery of costs and fees, including costs and fees incurred in defending against the two appeals,” the Netflix lawyers contend in their pleadings.
The fee request is also reasonable because the expenses incurred were the direct result of OneTaste’s “unorthodox and improper litigation conduct,” according to the Netflix attorneys’ court papers.
But in their court papers, OneTaste attorneys said any fees and costs should be denied, but if they are granted they should amount to no more than about $160,000, saying the lawsuit was neither “frivolous” nor “fruitless” as the Netflix attorneys contend.
“OneTaste established through this action that Netflix engaged in serious misconduct and only managed to evade liability in this forum because of the timing of the discovery of certain evidence concealed by Netflix and the impediment of the actual malice standard, which the U.S. Supreme Court may soon remove either via this case or another vehicle presently before the high court,” according to the OneTaste attorneys’ pleadings.
In the suit filed in November 2023, OneTaste said the case stemmed from the final 15 minutes of the film before the end credits, which the plaintiff alleged contained “false statements of fact that OneTaste condones violence against women and that a woman was raped and beaten in connection with her employment at OneTaste and participation in its classes and events.”
In addition to the aired allegations being” presumptively injurious,” OneTaste has suffered and continues to suffer actual damages on an ongoing basis because the film is the most widely disseminated information publicly available about OneTaste, according to the suit, which further stated that the company believes the film’s allegedly defamatory statements “have deterred and will continue to deter people from participating in OneTaste’s classes.”
But in its anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion, Netflix lawyers maintained the complaint violated Netflix’s First Amendment rights.
“The suit is part of a coordinated legal and publicity campaign attempting to salvage the reputation of the self-described wellness education company after years of critical reporting on its practices,” the motion stated. “The anti-SLAPP statute was passed to stop lawsuits exactly like this one, which seeks to chill important speech.”
Netflix first aired the film five months before founder Nicole Daedone, 58, and Rachel Cherwitz, 45, were indicted for allegedly forcing women into sex acts, allegations they denied. A federal jury last June found both guilty of forced labor conspiracy.
None of the allegedly defamatory statements are actionable because they are opinion and OneTaste has provided no factual allegations or any evidence that any of the statements are false or that Netflix had “subjective belief in their falsity,” the anti-SLAPP motion further stated.
The documentary includes primary-source archival material spanning more than a decade, providing an inside look at OneTaste’s philosophy and teachings, its charismatic founder Daedone and statements by her and others minimizing sexual violence, according to the anti-SLAPP motion.
The filmmakers incorporated comments from OneTaste into the documentary, according to the motion.
“Indeed, the production reached out repeatedly to OneTaste over multiple years seeking an interview for the documentary,” the anti-SLAPP motion stated.