Federal judge's defamation suit over alleged hacking inference tossed after he's deemed public official
A federal judge in Miami has tossed dueling defamation claims stemming from a dispute over condo repairs in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, that involve a New York federal judge.
Senior U.S. District Judge Frederic Block of the Eastern District of New York, who is now 91 years old, according to the New York Times, can’t proceed with his complaint against three defendants, U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman of the Southern District of Florida ruled in a June 30 amended order. And one of the defendants can’t countersue Block for defamation, Altman held.
The defendants are two former condo members, including the condo president, and a former lawyer for the board.
Altman held that Block is “obviously a public official” for defamation purposes, and the alleged defamatory statement—an email allegedly implying that Block wrongfully obtained residents’ email addresses and hacked into residents’ devices—relates to his official conduct.
“Whether Block is indeed a hacker—although, let’s be clear, there’s not an iota of evidence that he is—obviously bears on his fitness to serve as a federal judge,” Altman said.
As a result, Block is required to show that the defendants acted with actual malice, meaning that they acted with knowledge or reckless disregard of the falsity of their statements about him.
Block, represented by the Wigdor law firm, didn’t meet that standard. His argument on actual malice “is cursory and weak, consisting of just one paragraph with no case citations,” Altman said.
Altman said he thought that his decision was the first to determine that federal judges are public officials who are required to demonstrate actual malice.
The case involved emails sent by the parties, beginning with Block’s message expressing concern about delays in condo work in an email to 90 people—including condo residents and owners, the condo manager and the condo attorney—that displayed every person’s email address.
In a response, the defendants distributed a “privacy and construction alert” to residents. The email referred to Block as “a disgruntled owner” who disparaged the condo directors, the condo project and associated people “with incorrect statements and facts” in blast emails.
The board members’ email said the display of email addresses caused “serious privacy and security concerns for everyone” and advised “all members to check and consider updating their computers’ security and privacy settings.”
The board had spent time and money to gather documents demanded, the email said, yet Block “continues to regurgitate the same questions and in most cases inaccurate, misleading and/or out-of-context conclusions.”
Block said there were no security concerns because no one ever asked him how he obtained the email addresses. And he said the former board member defendants never changed their security settings.
In 2023, after his election to the board, Block circulated a letter to unit owners who could vote on the former condo president’s new candidacy. The letter said the condo president had been in charge while the contractor “destroyed our property,” and he continues to support the contractor. Block also complained that the prior email from the board defamed him in his profession by accusing him of making false statements and of hacking into emails.
That letter prompted a defamation counterclaim by the former condo board president.
As evidence of actual malice, Block had cited words used by the board, such as “disgruntled” and “regurgitated;” two defendants’ attempts to recall him after he won his election to the board; unsuccessful ethics complaints filed against him by the condo president; the board members’ refusal to issue a retraction or apology; and the inherent implausibility of the inferred hacking accusation.
Altman labeled Block’s arguments about the words “disgruntled” and “regurgitated” as “absurd.” He said Block “barely moves the needle” with arguments about the recall effort. As for the ethics complaints, “they’re a little better than the words and the recall—but just a little,” Altman said. The failure to retract by two board members is “further evidence of actual malice—though, once again, we see it as rather weak,” Altman said.
Turning to inherent implausibility, Altman said he thought that Block presented “threadbare evidence” of the intended meaning by the former board members.
“Block doesn’t offer any argument (or cite a single case) to explain why the inherent implausibility of an implication is entitled to any particular weight, and we won’t fill in that gap for him,” Altman said.
The board member’s counterclaim fails because Block’s letter about the election was protected by qualified privilege. Altman also tossed a counterclaim based on Block’s four text messages to three friends that included a link to a case that he was assigned to involving an organized crime family.
The counterclaim alleged that Block was insinuating that the condo board president was guilty of the same crimes when Block said in response to a query about who received the newspaper story that it should be forwarded to the board president and two others.
The text messages counterclaim required proof of special damages, but the condo board president “doesn’t identify a scrap of evidence,” Altman said.
Reuters and Law.com covered the decision.
Block was represented by Wigdor partner Valdi Licul, according to Law.com.
“The decision is fairly long and addresses a number of issues that seem to be unsettled,” Licul told Law.com in a statement. “We look forward to reviewing it and perhaps appealing it.”
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
