All the Latest on Laura Osnes and Garth Drabinsky's Defamation Lawsuits

This edition of Industry Trends appeared earlier in BroadwayWorld's Industry Pro Newsletter. Want to be the first to know about the latest industry trends? Click here to sign up!

This past week, there have been updates in a couple of the big theater-related lawsuits.

This summer, Actors' Equity Association filed lawsuits against a PARADISE SQUARE producing entity in both state and federal court. (In the state case, the parties informed the court last week that the sides were negotiating settlement. In the federal case, AEA has filed for summary judgment; that motion is pending.)

After those lawsuits were filed, embattled PARADISE SQUARE producer Garth Drabinsky sued AEA for defamation and related claims. This past week, he filed an amended complaint in that suit, adding antitrust claims. Drabinsky accused AEA of violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which is a federal statute that prohibits certain actions that restrict commerce and competition. The Amended Complaint alleges that AEA putting Drabinsky on its "Do Not Work" list has made it impossible for him to work in part because AEA monopolizes the theater market.

Underlying the new claims is Drabinsky's allegation that AEA has reach that extends beyond theater. On its "Do Not Work" list, AEA states: "[W]e share a special bond with AGMA, AGVA, GIAA and SAG-AFTRA... [We] stand in solidarity with one another. Members of our sister unions in the 4A's are prohibited from accepting theatrical employment without an Equity contract, and we have a reciprocal arrangement that also prohibits Equity members from working in the areas covered by other 4A's unions without the appropriate union contract." Through this, Drabinsky is alleging that AEA has essentially partnered with other unions to ban him from working in other entertainment fields. For instance, the Amended Complaint alleges: "AEA, members of AEA, and unions that represent actors, such as AGMA, AGVA, GIAA, and SAG-AFTRA, and their members, have entered into an unlawful horizontal agreement in the form of a 'Do Not Work' Blacklist to boycott Drabinsky."

Horizontal group boycotts -- which are agreements among competitors to boycott a third party -- are indeed frowned on by the courts. But this isn't a traditional framing of one and antitrust suits against unions are generally not favored under the law. Indeed, there are statutory exemptions related to them and also strong case law that holds that as long as a union essentially stays in its lane, it won't be held liable for antitrust violations. Drabinsky's attorneys are obviously leaning into this supposed partnership between the unions to show that AEA has steered outside its lane.

AEA has already filed a letter with the court saying the claims "fail as a matter of law" and "lack merit." The court will now set a schedule for AEA to motion to dismiss the complaint.

In other theater related news, The New York Post and the two reporters sued by Laura Osnes for defamation have motioned to dismiss that suit. In Defendants' motion to dismiss they rely primarily on New York's "anti-SLAPP law." SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation" and New York has strong laws to protect against those suits, which limit freedom of the press. Defendants argue the article was on a matter of public interest and that, therefore, in order to succeed, Osnes must establish it was published with "actual malice." In New York statutory speak, that means Osnes has to "establish[] by clear and convincing evidence that any communication which gives rise to the action was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false[.]" Defendants argue the Complaint hasn't properly pled "actual malice" and the motion includes long statements from both reporters detailing (without disclosing source names) how they found out about the story and the follow-up they conducted. Defendants also argue that even if Osnes did withdraw from the concert, and was not fired (as printed in The Post), the gist of the articles is true and therefore cannot support her claims. Osnes is expected to oppose this motion to dismiss.

BroadwayWorld will keep you updated on the resolution of these cases.

Want to be the first to know about the latest industry trends? Click here to sign up for BroadwayWorld's Industry Pro Newsletter.