Markle v. Markle

1

SAMANTHA M. MARKLE, Plaintiff, v. MEGHAN MARKLE, Defendant.

No. 8:22-cv-511-CEH-TGW

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

March 12, 2024

ORDER

CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This cause comes before the Court upon Defendant Meghan Markle's Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 74), Plaintiff Samantha M. Markle's Response in Opposition (Doc. 79) and the respective Reply and Sur-Reply (Docs. 82 89).^[1] For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Motion to Dismiss. Moreover, because amendment would be futile, Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed with prejudice.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This motion addresses the third iteration of Plaintiff's Complaint, in which she brings one count of defamation and one count of defamation by implication. See Docs. 1, 31, 72. Previously, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. See Doc. 70. Plaintiff's defamation claims based on Finding Freedom-a book published by a third party-were dismissed with prejudice because Defendant did not publish the relevant statements and therefore could not be held liable for them. Id. at 15. The Court dismissed defamation claims based on three statements from a televised interview, without prejudice, based in part on Plaintiff's mischaracterizations of the transcript. Id. at 17-23. The Order further noted that Defendant's substantive arguments regarding these claims appeared to have merit. Id. Count Two, a claim for injurious falsehood, was dismissed without prejudice under Florida's single action rule, which holds that a plaintiff generally may not allege multiple causes of action based on the same defamatory publication or event. Id. at 25-27. Plaintiff has not repleaded the injurious falsehood claim.

In the operative complaint, Plaintiff reasserts her defamation claim (and adds a defamation-by-implication claim) based on the television interview. Doc. 72 ¶¶ 23-38, 65, 74. She also asserts new defamation and defamation-by-implication claims based on statements from Harry & Meghan, a Netflix documentary series released in December 2022. Id. ¶¶ 39-55, 65, 74.

A. The Parties and Background Allegations^[2]

Samantha M. Markle (“Plaintiff”) is a citizen of Florida and half-sister to Meghan Markle, also known as Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex (“Defendant”). Id. ¶¶ 3-6. The two were close during childhood, and Plaintiff regularly drove Defendant to school and helped her with homework. Id. ¶ 7. They had a “good to wonderful relationship.” Id. As Defendant achieved success as an actress, “she no longer had time for [Plaintiff],” and the two stopped “visiting” by 2016. Id. ¶ 8. Then, once Defendant met Prince Harry and became engaged to him, the half-sisters became estranged. Id. ¶ 9.

In 2017 and 2018, Defendant hung up on Plaintiff during a phone call and ultimately, of her family members, only invited her mother to the Royal Wedding. Id. ¶¶ 10-13. Plaintiff was subsequently “discovered” by the media and, in an interview, stated that Defendant had not contacted their father after he suffered two heart attacks. Id. ¶¶ 15-16. The press used fabricated quotes and wrote that Plaintiff “bashed” Defendant. Id. ¶ 17. Subsequently, Defendant allegedly started a “smear campaign” against Plaintiff and began to resent her. Id. ¶¶ 17-19.

B. The CBS Interview

On March 7, 2021, Oprah Winfrey interviewed Defendant and Prince Harry on a televised CBS special. Id. ¶ 23. Approximately 50 million people tuned in. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made four defamatory statements in that interview. Id. ¶ 24.

The Court has already taken judicial notice of an undisputed transcript of the relevant portion of the interview, reproduced below. See Doc. 41-2; Doc. 64 at 2. The allegedly defamatory statements are underlined. Any typographical errors or repeated words appear in the transcript submitted to the Court (Doc. 41-2).

Speaker 3 [CBS Reporter]: But she found out her dad was working with the tabloids.

Defendant: There was such an obsession about anything in my world, including tracking down my parents, and I did everything that I could to protect both of them in that media frenzy. But for over a year, the UK tabloids were trying to find my dad offering people so much money to try to find his address. Once they did, I remember being told there was a huge headline like We found him or we've got him saying that about someone's father. And from that point, the tabloids they moved into the apartment next door and across from him descended on the small town, which is giving him gifts. The whole thing brings us to where we are today.

Oprah Winfrey: Did it feel like betrayal when you found out your father was working with the tabloids.

Defendant: I'm just trying to decide if I'm comfortable even talking about that. If we're going to use the word betrayal. It's because when I asked him when we were told by the comms team, this is a story that was going to be coming out, which by the way, the tabloids had apparently known for a month or so and decided to hold until the Sunday before our wedding because they wanted to create drama, which is also a really key point in all this. They don't report the news, they create the news. We called my dad and I asked him and he said, No, absolutely not. And I said, You know, the the institution has never intervened for anything for us, but they can try to go in and kill this story. But if they do this once we're not going to be able to use that same leverage to protect our own kids one day.

Oprah Winfrey: He said no, absolutely not. He hadn't been talking to them.

Defendant: Yea.

Oprah Winfrey: So he basically lied to you.

Defendant: Well, and so when I said we won't be able to protect our own kids one day. And and I said, I just need you to tell me, and if you tell me the truth, we can help. And he wasn't able to do that. And that, for me, has has really resonated, especially now as a mother, you know,

Oprah Winfrey: not being able to, not being willing to protect you

Defendant: and also me saying, just full stop, if we use this to protect you won't be able to protect our own children one day. Well, I'm talking about your grandchildren. So I can't. I mean, I look at Archie. I think about this child, and I go, I can't. I genuinely can't imagine doing anything to intentionally cause pain to my child. I can't. I can't imagine it. So it's hard for me to reconcile that.

Oprah Winfrey: So your father being hunted down? It seemed like you were saying in some ways that they did this to him. So I want you to be able to clarify this, that that that the tabloids, the media did this to him. They hunted him. But he has a responsibility in it to

Defendant: everyone, has accountability. Look, they've hunted my mom down.

Oprah Winfrey: Right. And she never speaks to the tabloids.

Defendant: I never heard her say a word and remained in silent dignity for four years watching me go through this.

Oprah Winfrey: And Samantha Markle, your half-sister on your father's side, has written a, a supposedly tell all book about you. What is what is your relationship with her?

Defendant: I think it be very hard to tell all when you don't know me. And I, it's this is a very different situation than my dad, right? When you talk about betrayal, betrayal comes from someone that you have a relationship with. Right? I don't feel comfortable talking about people that I really don't know. But I grew up as an only child, which everyone who grew up around me knows, and I wished I had siblings. I would have loved to have had siblings, so I'm excited to be pregnant that Archie has someone. It was really interesting to me. The last time I saw her must have been at least 18, 19 years ago and before that, 10 years before that.

Oprah Winfrey: So you all weren't close. You didn't grow up together.

Defendant: No.

Oprah Winfrey: She doesn't really know you.

Defendant: No. She changed her last name back to Markle, and I think she's an early fifties at that time only when I started dating Harry. And so I think that's says enough.

Speaker 3 [CBS Reporter]: That name change does say a lot. Oprah is still with us, Oprah. The other thing that leapt out to me was the way Meghan described how her mother had been bearing up under all this scrutiny with, quote, silent dignity. And then you contrast that with her father. Is she open at this point to having a relationship with her father? I know he's never met Archie or Harry.

Oprah Winfrey: I know or Harry. I think, I think I haven't really. I didn't pursue that conversation with them. From what I gather, her relationship with her father is similar to what's happening with Prince Harry and Prince William now that there is distance there. And maybe with time, things will get better.

C. Netflix Series

Beginning in December 2022, the streaming platform Netflix released a 6-part mini-series entitled Harry & Meghan (the “Series”). Doc. 72 ¶ 39. The Series, a joint effort between Defendant's production company and another entity, was “filmed, edited, and produced for Netflix under the direction of [Defendant] and Prince Harry.” Id. ¶ 40. It consisted of six episodes, each spanning around an hour and featuring interviews with Defendant, Prince Harry, and “friends, family, and interested and participatory parties.” Id. ¶ 42. The Series “directly or indirectly” references Plaintiff in four episodes. Id. ¶ 45. Plaintiff alleges that fourteen statements from the Series were defamatory, including numerous statements by Christopher Bouzy, a non-party to the suit. Id. ¶ 49.

D. Damages

Plaintiff lives in Lakeland, Florida, where she is well known for her ties to Defendant. Id. ¶ 57. As a result of the...