#Metoo: David Daniels sues one of his accusers

The countertenor, accused of sexual assault by two men, has filed a counterclaim against one of them – Andrew Lipian, a graduate music student at the University of Michigan, where Daniels taught until his dismissal.

Lipian’s lawyer has called the counterclaim ‘frivolous.’ It looks like the issue is heading for court.

Read here.

 

 

share this

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on google
  • It would seem that Daniels is trying to reverse the damage that has already been done to his reputation, at the U.of Michigan at least. I am not sure how this counterclaim will affect Mr. Lipian’s federal lawsuit.
    Surely, though, Daniels will not want this to go to trial, where all sorts of sordid details would most likely come out. We’ll see.

    • “Sordid details come out”? Only if he is unable, like Levine and the Met did, to obtain a confidentiality agreement on the identity of the witnesses and their testimony.

      • There is no confidentiality agreement between Levine and the Met relating to their current legal disagreements. Just the opposite. The purpose of Levine’s legal action is to publicise the actions of the Met which he believes to be tortious. And there were never agreements relating to the potential witnesses and their testimony. This was all discussed on SA in March of 2018. In any case, contractual agreements would have no effect on a legal proceeding. That’s why the commentator above made the valid point that if Daniels goes to trial all sorts of details are likely to come out. There is no avenue for him to avoid that outcome through contractual agreements with anyone.

        • Indeed, in July, according to documents on the public NY Courts website, there was a confidentiality agreement with regard to the witnesses which means that depositions cannot be published. The two issues in Levine’s petition, also online, are breach of contract and defamation. The Met is trying to get the defamation accusations dismissed and presumably will then try to reach a settlement for the breach of contract.

    • Wait… but Daniels is the one calling for this to play out in court and not on blogs like this, yet Lipian never filed a police report or get in touch with Michigan admin. Perhaps, you should not speak so ‘surely.’

      • Lipian did report the incidents to the U. of Michigan, and they did nothing. That is why he is suing the school and Daniels in a federal lawsuit.
        Sexually harassing a student of yours may not be a crime per se, which is probably why Lipian did not go to the police. But it certainly is unprofessional and unethical, which was why Lipian reported it to the school.

        • Lipian went to the press, the press contacted the school, the school contacted Lipian. Lipian is clearly an oppritunist looking for a payout. The claims he’s made about Daniels’ conduct would be considered criminal, but he is not seeking relief through law enforcement, rather he is banking on the ignorance of people’s understanding of the law and thirst for tabloid trash in order to make easy money.

          • That is completely incorrect. Lipian never went to the press – the press reported on his lawsuit after it was filed. Also, Daniels was just arrested last night in Ann Arbor and is facing extradition to Texas as he is being charged with a crime. Get your facts straight.

  • His counterclaim is so odd, for “invasion of privacy”, as in, I don’t contest the facts, you just shouldn’t have revealed them to the world.

    Those who claim innocence tend to countersue for defamation, as in, I deny everything.

    • That’s because you don’t understand the law. One can’t counter-sue for defamation because court pleadings (filings) are considered privileged to the plaintiff. If a defendant (Daniels) is found to be innocent, then he can sue Lipian for defamation. This is where Gordon is clearly reaching in calling the counterclaims frivolous. I imagine Daniels is suing for invasion of privacy because the original complaint puts into public record aspects of his private life that have no bearing on the Title IX lawsuit filed. The law is very specific about the burden that must be met by a plaintiff. Based on what’s been presented in the complaint and comments given by the two parties involved, Lipian/Gordon have yet to reach said bar. Comments like these only give credence to someone’s reputation being destroyed by accusations alone, and opinions being issued in the ‘court of public opinion.’

    • Yes, “invasion of privacy” actions are necessarily based on true facts. Otherwise, the plaintiff would sue for libel. What you find “so odd” is precisely the reason why invasion of privacy torts were created in the last century: to protect people from the public disclosure of matters that they are entitled to keep private. This is why Gawker no longer exists. They invaded the privacy of Hulk Hogan (by publishing a private sex tape), were successfully sued for it, and were ordered to pay $140 million in damages. I’m sure they found it odd to be put out of business because they invaded a private citizen’s privacy.

  • Good for him. Let the matter be heard by an impartial adjudicator. If Daniels is found liable, then let him face the consequences. But he will have had his day in court.

  • I’m not a lawyer, but doesn’t filing a counter-suit against an accuser entitle the accuser to depose you under oath, and to ask questions which you otherwise would not have to answer? My understanding is that when you’re only a defendant, you don’t have to testify against yourself, and refusing to answer a question whose answer could be used to convict you either rightly (of something you actually did) or wrongly (of something you did not do) does not constitute either an admission of guilt nor an assertion of innocence on your part. Your refusal to testify against yourself is content-neutral as far as the court and the jury are concerned; they’re not allowed to infer any fact at all from your refusal. In contrast, a counter-suit against an accuser constitutes an active allegation that the accuser’s accusation is false. That’s an additional level of assertion above and beyond simply refusing to answer if the prosecutor asks “did you do it?”

    In other words, by filing the counter-suit, I think that Daniels may be going from saying “if you accuse me, you’re gonna have to prove it, and I don’t think you can” to saying “the accusation is false”. He may even be going to saying “the accusation is false and I CAN prove it.”

    But as I say I’m not a lawyer so I might be talking through my hat. Any trial-lawyers out there in Slipped-Disc-Reader-Land want to weigh in on this? Is Daniels exposing himself (so to speak) to any increase in risk by filing the counter-suit?

    • All parties in legal proceedings are deposed regardless. This happens during the discovery period. Depositions are used in court if a witness changes their story on the stand.

  • >