A former Philadelphia police officer has decided to drop a defamation lawsuit against Meek Mill, Jay-Z and others over her inclusion on a list of allegedly dirty and dishonest cops spotlighted in the 2019 Amazon-produced documentary “Free Meek.”
Photo Credit: Shutterstock
Thursday, Saqueta Williams filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit she filed last year stemming from her brief inclusion in the five-part Amazon true-crime documentary, which chronicles the 12-year legal saga of rapper Meek Mill’s disputed conviction, high-profile incarceration and fight for criminal justice reform.
Williams sued in January of 2020, seeking $75,000, claiming she had been defamed by the appearance of her image in “Free Meek” — a series that probed the rapper’s 2008 drug conviction, which led to his 2017 incarceration for a parole violation and later became a focal point for many advocates of criminal justice reform.
The 33-page complaint also named Amazon, Roc Nation, Wenner Media and rap mogul Jay-Z. It claims all contributed to the production and distribution of the documentary “despite having entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the publication.”
The lawsuit focused on Episode 4, a segment in which Williams’ image briefly appeared on screen while an expert described a list of “dirty and dishonest” cops. The group termed the “Do Not Call List” is a roster of officers who local prosecutors will not call to testify as witnesses because of past arrests, disciplinary actions or false testimony.
Williams was included on the list due to an off-duty incident in which she drew her firearm; she was later cleared of any criminal wrongdoing by a jury. Her lawsuit claimed the documentary falsely implied that she was a “dirty, corrupt, immoral and dishonest” officer who lied to internal affairs, to other officers, and in court.
In October, a Pennsylvania federal judge dismissed Williams’ accusations of intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy, but allowed her to pursue her claims of defamation and presentation of false light.
The same judge refused to dismiss the defamation claims in December, stating Williams had achieved the difficult standard for public figures suing for libel — plausibly alleging the defendants acted with “actual malice”.
“Plaintiff clears this high hurdle,” the judge wrote in December. “She plausibly alleges that defendants knew the defamatory implication at issue was false because they possessed the Philadelphia Inquirer article detailing the true reason for plaintiff’s inclusion on the ‘Do Not Call List,’ and she plausibly alleges defendants chose to communicate the defamatory implication despite that knowledge.”
Attorneys for Williams told a Pennsylvania federal judge that the case was “fully settled,” but public documents did not include any specific terms of the agreement.
Read more articles from Haute Lawyer, visit https://hauteliving.com/hautelawyer/
