Jacobson v. Clack

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the awarding of attorneys’ fees in an action brought by a climate scientist who alleged that the defendants’ publication of an article in a scientific journal criticizing the scientist’s research paper constituted defamation. The plaintiff’s paper “concluded that the U.S. power grid could inexpensively move to “100% wind, water, and solar” energy sources by 2050 without the need for “natural gas, biofuels, nuclear power, or stationary batteries.” The article at issue—which was co-authored by one of the defendants and published in a journal published by the other defendant—contended that the paper “used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.” The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his suit after a hearing at which the trial court hinted it was likely to grant the defendants’ special motions to dismiss under D.C.’s Anti-Strategic Litigation Lawsuits Against Public Participation Act (Anti-SLAPP Act). The trial court subsequently granted the defendants’ motions for attorneys’ fees under the Anti-SLAPP Act, finding that they had prevailed in whole or in part. The Court of Appeals first concluded that the Anti-SLAPP Act permitted an award of attorneys’ fees against a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses his suit. The court further concluded that the defendants had prevailed under either the “merits-based” approach (whether the motion to dismiss would have succeeded but for the voluntary dismissal), the “catalyst” approach (whether the motion to dismiss prompted the voluntary dismissal), or a modified catalyst approach based on a rebuttable presumption that the defendant prevailed when the special motion to dismiss precedes the voluntary dismissal. Regarding the merits-based approach, the court found that the plaintiff “has no plausible hope” of showing that the defendants made a false and defamatory statement and did so with actual malice. The court said the plaintiff had instead asked the courts “to resolve a scientific debate, and that is something we are generally neither equipped to do, nor permitted to do by the First Amendment.” The court affirmed the award of $428,723 and $75,000 to the two defendants and remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether the defendants were entitled to additional attorneys’ fees incurred for the defense of the trial court’s award.