Bassett v. Jensen et al

Filing 24

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. " I deny the defendants motion for a preliminary injunction on the ground that they have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits " re #9 MOTION for Injunctive Relief filed by Jon Blitt, Mile High Distribution, Inc., Monica Jensen (Coppola, Katelyn)

Case 1:18-cv-10576-PBS Document 24 Filed 07/18/18 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
___________________________________
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MONICA JENSEN, d/b/a, NICA NOELLE; )
JON BLITT, personally and d/b/a
)
MILE HIGH MEDIA, ICON MALE, and
)
TRANSSENSUAL; MILE HIGH
)
DISTRIBUTION, INC.; JOSHUA
)
SPAFFORD, d/b/a/ JOSHUA DARLING;
)
APRIL CARTER, d/b/a DIANA DEVOE;
)
TLA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, d/b/a
)
TLA GAY, d/b/a TLA DISTRIBUTION;
)
GAMMA ENTERTAINMENT, d/b/a
)
CHARGEPAY B.V.; WILLIAM GRAY,
)
d/b/a BILLY SANTORO; and
)
FIORE J. BARBINI, d/b/a
)
HUGH HUNTER,
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
LEAH BASSETT,

Civil Action
No. 18-10576-PBS

ORDER
July 18, 2018
Saris, C.J.
After hearing, I deny the defendants’ motion for a
preliminary injunction on the ground that they have not
demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Defendants
request an injunction to enjoin Plaintiff’s Attorney John Taylor
from communicating with the press and media in a “disparaging
prejudicial manner” about the defendants. Such a broad
injunction would be a prior restraint in violation of the First
1

Case 1:18-cv-10576-PBS Document 24 Filed 07/18/18 Page 2 of 2

Amendment. Sindi v. El-Moslimany, No. 16-2347, 2018 WL 3373549
(1st Cir. July 11, 2018) (holding that an injunction against
republishing defamatory statements failed strict scrutiny
because it was not narrowly tailored). Moreover, at this early
stage of the proceedings, defendants have not shown that any of
Mr. Taylor’s statements “will have a substantial likelihood of
materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the
matter.” Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.6(a). Both trial counsel have
agreed not to communicate with the media about the substance of
the case until its conclusion.
Defendants also request an injunction to prevent Mr. Taylor
from “threatening or intimidating potential witnesses and/or
parties,” but defendants have not shown a likelihood of success
or irreparable harm. While the issue has not been well briefed,
defendants’ primary evidence of a “threat” is that plaintiff
published an “open letter” in a blog that promises not to sue
witnesses who cooperate with plaintiff in the litigation.

/s/ Patti B. Saris_______________
HON. PATTI B. Saris
Chief U.S. District Judge

2