Judge Rules Dan Schneider Libel Suit Against 'Quiet On Set' Producers Can Continue

If you want to see what a lot of money and some high-end lawyers can get you in court, look no further than the ongoing battle between former Nickelodeon producer Dan Schneider and the producers of Quiet On Set: The Dark Side Of Kids TV.

Following the release of the documentary earlier this year, 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.

The case has been winding its way through the courts ahead of a trial and the focus of the battle has been an effort by the defendants to have the case dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP statute. 

SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and refers to lawsuits brought by individuals and entities to dissuade their critics from continuing to produce negative publicity. The defendants in this case have argued Schneider's lawsuit fits this description and should be dismissed with prejudice (which means it can't be filed again).

In a hearing in October, 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 the judge, Schneider failed to do the latter.

The judge also expressed concern that most of the proof the average viewer who watched Quiet On Set would think Schneider was guilty of sexually abusing children submitted by Schneider attorney Gerry Silver, a partner at Sullivan and Worcester, cited 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 noted that trying to determine social media inferences and implications is a "slippery slope."

In the end, Judge Chowdhury tentatively dismissed the charges pending a further hearing. 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.

A follow-up hearing was held on Friday, November 22nd and centered around a couple of issues. One of which was that while Schneider had filed a declaration with the court that he had "never sexually assaulted or sexually abused a child," the declaration was not signed under penalty of perjury, as is required under the law.