Where a plaintiff whose defamation claim was dismissed based on the conditional privilege for workplace investigations has moved for leave to amend, the motion should be denied as futile because the plaintiff has not alleged facts that plausibly support the notion that the defendants abused the conditional privilege.
“Until 2021, Dr. David M. Sabatini (‘Sabatini’) ran a laboratory at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (‘Whitehead’). In 2020, Dr. Kristin A. Knouse (‘Knouse’), who also worked at Whitehead, complained about Sabatini to Whitehead’s director, Dr. Ruth Lehmann (‘Lehmann’). After an investigation into the culture in Sabatini’s lab, which found that he had engaged in sexual harassment, Sabatini resigned and brought this action against Knouse, Whitehead, and Lehmann, claiming that they engaged in wrongful conduct in connection with the investigation and its aftermath.
“With discovery almost complete, Sabatini moves for leave to amend to add a count for civil conspiracy against Lehmann and Knouse (Count X), and revive a claim for defamation against Lehmann and Whitehead (Count II) that was previously dismissed based on the conditional privilege for workplace investigations. Sabatini contends that the new facts plausibly suggest that Lehmann and Whitehead abused and therefore lost that conditional privilege. Defendants oppose the motion arguing, among other things, that the amendment is futile. For the following reasons, the motion to amend is denied. …
“In the [Second Amended Complaint (SAC)], as in the [First Amended Complaint (FAC)], Sabatini alleges that the Whitehead Defendants defamed him by publicly stating that he was a harasser, that he had committed serious policy violations, and that an independent review had been undertaken of his conduct. …
“Stripped of its conclusory allegations, the SAC does not allege facts that plausibly support the notion that the Whitehead Defendants abused the conditional privilege. …
“Sabatini argues that the conditional privilege was lost due to actual malice or excessive publication. These arguments are also not adequately supported by the SAC’s new factual allegations. As discussed above, the new allegations do not plausibly suggest Lehmann knew or had reason to know that the allegations against Sabatini were false. … So much of the motion as seeks to reinvigorate the dismissed defamation claim against the Whitehead Defendants is denied. …
“‘Massachusetts law recognizes two distinct theories of liability under the umbrella term of “civil conspiracy”: [1] “concerted action” conspiracy … and [2] “true conspiracy” based on coconspirators exerting “some peculiar power of coercion.”’ …
“… Here, plaintiff asserts that both theories apply. He fails to state a claim under either one.”
Sabatini v. Knouse, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-077-25) (17 pages) (Krupp, J.) (Suffolk Superior Court) (Civil No. 22-1449-BLS1) (May 21, 2025).