First, some backstory, from a decision in March by Judge Jessica Clarke (S.D.N.Y.) in eShares, Inc. v. Talton allowing Talton to proceed on his defamation claim:
According to Talton, in December 2022, he was terminated by Carta [also called eShares] and [Carta's CEO] Ward for opposing Carta and Ward's discrimination toward women …. One week after Talton's termination, Carta initiated a lawsuit against Talton for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets. Several months after Talton's termination, Ward published and circulated an article on Medium casting Talton as "inappropriate toward women" and a "misogynist and racist." …
Talton specifies several statements made in Ward's Medium Article that could constitute defamation per se. The article states that Talton "was inappropriate with women and abused his position as CTO" and that Talton was "a misogynist and racist." In the context of an article about employee impact on company performance, these qualify as "words that impute a person … lacks integrity in performing … his employment duties" and as "words that … prejudices [a] person in … his profession." Moreover, Talton has alleged the defamatory effect of these statements included lowering his professional standing and extending his period of unemployment….
Carta and Ward also argue that these statements are constitutionally protected opinions. But this is also unavailing. As discussed above, Illinois law categorizes such statements about Talton's lack of integrity at work and statements prejudicing him in employment to be defamation per se….
In a decision Monday, Judge Clarke limited Carta's discovery of Talton's past communications:
