Exclusive: Dan Schneider Lawsuit Against Producers Of 'Quiet On Set' Tentatively Dismissed

The story is still breaking, I will updating the story throughout the day..

When the docuseries Quiet On Set: The Dark Side Of Kids TV was released by Investigation Discovery earlier this year, the program sparked a lot of interest from viewers and questions about the behavior of longtime Nickelodeon producer Dan Schneider during his time at the network. Schneider is best known for creating, writing and/or producing Nickelodeon’s children  television comedies All That, The Amanda Show, Drake & Josh, Zoey 101, iCarly, and Victorious, among others. 

Quiet On Set recounted several instances of sexual abuse suffered by young actors on Nickelodeon shows, most notably Drake Bell. But there was also a focus on Schneider's problematic behavior on his shows, which included allegations of sexism and inappropriate behavior. But the documentary didn't accuse Schneider of sexual abuse and indeed included a statement specifying he wasn't being accused of knowing or participating in those acts.

Undeterred by that disclaimer, on May 1st, Schneider filed a defamation lawsuit against Warner Bros. Discovery (which owns Investigation Discovery), Maxine Productions (which produced the docuseries), Sony Pictures Television (which owns Maxine Productions), docuseries producers Emma Schwartz and Mary Robertson, along with 50 unnamed Does.

In the complaint, Schneider argued the documentary implied that he was knowledge and/complicit in the allegations of sexual abuse included in the series:

Quiet on Set’s portrayal of Schneider is a hit job. While it is indisputable that two bona fide child sexual abusers worked on Nickelodeon shows, it is likewise indisputable that Schneider had no knowledge of their abuse, was not complicit in the abuse, condemned the abuse once it was discovered and, critically, was not a child sexual abuser himself. But for the sake of clickbait, ratings, and views—or put differently, money—Defendants have destroyed Schneider’s reputation and legacy through the false statements and implications that Schneider is exactly that. 

No doubt Defendants will endeavor to obfuscate what this lawsuit is about by pointing to what they did get right—and Schneider will be the first to admit that some of what they said is true. At times, he was blind to the pain that some of his behaviors caused certain colleagues, subordinates, and cast members. He will regret and atone for this behavior the rest of his life. But one thing he is not—and the one thing that will forever mar his reputation and career both past and present—is a child sexual abuser. 

The filing also argued Schneider was requesting damages in excess of $35,000, because under California law, defamation is actionable as a claim for libel or slander under California Civil Code 44:

Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy. or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation. Slander is a “false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered,” which “charges any person with a crime, or with having been indicted, convicted or punished for a crime,” or tends to injure him with respect to his “office, profession, trade or business.”

Today the complaint was tentatively stricken by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, who wrote that the ultimate reason for dismissal centered around the case law for California Civil Code 44, which requires the plaintiff to not only prove libel, but also provide proof that the facts at dispute are not true. And according to today's filings, Schneider failed to do the latter:

The tort of defamation involves (a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that (e) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage. (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720.)

As can be seen from both the statutory and common law definitions of defamation, the alleged defamation must be false.

Problematic with Plaintiff’s Opposition is that Plaintiff does not come forward with any evidence that the alleged defamatory statements are false.

“To establish a probability of prevailing, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.” (Soukup v. Law
Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 291.)

Here, Plaintiff did not even come forward with his own affidavit or declaration stating that the alleged defamatory statements and implications were false. Therefore, since Plaintiff did not come forward with evidence that the alleged statements or implications were false, Plaintiff
cannot meet the prima facie showing for a cause of action for defamation because a cause of action for defamation must show that the alleged defamation was false.

“As to the second step inquiry, a plaintiff seeking to demonstrate the merit of the claim ‘may not rely solely on its complaint, even if verified; instead, its proof must be made upon competent admissible evidence.’”

During Friday's oral arguments, Schneider's lawyers addressed this lack of Schneider's denial by telling Judge Chowdhury that Schneider was willing to submit a written declaration, stating that he had never committed any acts of sexual abuse.

Defense lawyers pushed back on that proposal, "The plaintiff has had plenty of time to deny the key allegation in the complaint, underlining his theory of defamation by implication. Instead, he chose to speak through surrogates," said Michael Grygiel of GreenbergTraurig.

In his ruling Judge Chowdhury goes on to write:

A large portion of Plaintiff’s Opposition argues that defamation can be implied, that the trailer and documentary state or imply Schneider sexually abused children who worked on his show and that Schneider was a child sexual abuser, and how the ordinary viewer understands the trailer and documentary to be defamatory.

The Court notes that even if all of the aforementioned arguments by Plaintiff are true, this is beside the point.

Plaintiff still had the burden to come forward with evidence to set forth the prima facie case for defamation. Plaintiff here did not submit any evidence as to the falsity of the alleged defamation.

Plaintiff came forward with the declaration of Doug Bania; however, this declaration pertains only to damages/harm to Plaintiff. This declaration did not come forward with evidence that the alleged defamation is false.

Plaintiff also came forward with the declaration of John Vaccaro, who is a digital media executive. This declaration also did not come forward with evidence that the alleged defamation is false.

Thus, Plaintiff did not show a probability that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits.

Judge Chowdhury then granted this tentative ruling:

Defendants’ motion to strike the Complaint pursuant to CCP § 425.16 is GRANTED. Plaintiff did not meet his burden in showing a probability of prevailing on the merits of the defamation cause of action.

According to California case law, a tentative ruling is the proposed ruling of the court. Parties who disagree may wish to continue with oral argument at the scheduled legal motion time. Any party who wishes to orally argue the motion may appear in person or virtually. Failure to appear may be deemed a waiver of oral argument. If neither party appears at the scheduled hearing, the tentative ruling may become the final order of the court on the date set for the hearing.

Which essentially means that short of the judge ruling positively on one of the plaintiff's motions, the complaint will be dismissed.

During Friday's oral arguments, the arguments to dismiss the case centered on several key points. One of which was whether or not the average viewer who watched Quiet On Set would think Schneider was guilty of sexually abusing children? Schneider attorney Gerry Silver, a partner at Sullivan and Worcester, argued that it did, citing various social media comments from YouTube videos and tweets on X as indications that confusion by the viewers was likely. Defense counsel Grygiel argued that the comments were indicative of nothing, since it was impossible to know whether the people making the comments were real or truly believed what they had written.

Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury seemed increasingly unsure of the answer to this problem, finally saying "Social media, I think we can all agree, is not a wellspring of truth and reasonableness." He also notes that trying to determine social media inferences and implications is a "slippery slope."

The other determinative question still unanswered is whether it is reasonable to assume the plaintiff has a likely chance of prevailing on the merits of the case. Schneider's lawyer argued that there was enough weight in the plaintiff's argument to proceed to a jury trial.

After issuing his tentative decision, Judge Chowdhury set a further hearing date for November 8th, in which both sides will present their arguments over this issue.

"This case does raise a lot of difficult and interesting issues," commented Judge Chowdhury. "I continue to believe it’s not a slam dunk, either way."