An excerpt from today's long Report and Recommendation by Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein in Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC v. Jacob:
This action arises from an encounter between Defendant and then-hotel guest Faiz Akbar … in the lobby of Plaintiff's hotel in December 2024. The Parties sharply dispute the nature of the encounter, who initiated or escalated it, and whether Plaintiff responded appropriately to Defendant's subsequent complaints.
Plaintiff's operative First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant published false statements concerning the incident and Plaintiff's response to it, including statements that Plaintiff discriminated against Defendant because he is Jewish, knowingly permitted an antisemitic assault to occur on its premises, removed Defendant rather than the alleged aggressor, and refused to cooperate with law enforcement. Based on those allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant for defamation and tortious interference with business relationships.
Defendant filed a Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint asserting claims against Plaintiff and naming Jeffrey Soffer … and Akbar as Third-Party Defendants. Defendant's Counterclaim alleges, among other things, that he was subjected to an antisemitic verbal attack at the hotel, that Plaintiff failed to protect him or adequately cooperate with the ensuing investigation, and that Plaintiff thereafter excluded him from its properties. Defendant asserted claims under federal civil-rights statutes and a claim for tortious interference with business relationships….
The merits of the Parties' competing claims are not directly before the Court in the Motion for Sanctions. Instead, the dispute concerns Defendant's conduct during the litigation, the meaning and scope of the District Court's February 20, 2026 Order …, and whether Defendant's subsequent social-media activity violated that Order in a manner warranting sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) or the Court's inherent authority….
On March 11, 2025, Defendant served a subpoena on the Miami Beach Police Department seeking video footage of the underlying incident that Plaintiff previously provided to the department. The Miami Beach Police Department produced responsive surveillance footage to Defendant's counsel on March 26, 2025, and counsel thereafter transmitted that footage to Defendant. On April 2, 2025, before the entry of a protective order, Defendant posted an excerpt of the surveillance footage to his public Instagram account, which had more than 90,000 followers. On April 7, 2025, the Parties jointly moved for entry of a stipulated protective order governing discovery in this action. The Court entered the Parties' Stipulated Protective Order on April 9, 2025.
The Protective Order provides that material produced by a nonparty is automatically treated as "Outside Counsel Eyes Only" for thirty days following production without the need for an affirmative designation by a party. The Protective Order further prohibits the use of discovery material for any purpose unrelated to this litigation, including any public, commercial, business, or personal purpose. The Protective Order restricts access to material designated as "Highly Confidential" or "Outside Counsel Eyes Only" to specified persons and does not permit unrestricted public dissemination of such material….
On April 10, 2025, one day after entry of the Protective Order, Defendant again posted the surveillance footage to his social-media accounts. On April 16, 2025, Plaintiff formally designated the materials produced by the Miami Beach Police Department as "Highly Confidential," and Plaintiff's counsel communicated that designation to Defendant's counsel. Defendant's counsel then informed Defendant of the designation, after which Defendant removed the footage. Defendant contemporaneously published a social-media post acknowledging that he was "required under the rules to remove the video."
Notwithstanding his knowledge of the Protective Order and Plaintiff's confidentiality designation, Defendant again posted the surveillance footage on September 17, 2025…. Although Plaintiff requested severe evidentiary and litigation-ending sanctions [over this], the undersigned concluded that those sanctions were not then supported by the record because a lesser sanction had not previously been imposed for the violation. The undersigned instead awarded Plaintiff its reasonable attorney's fees and costs attributable to the sanctions motion and expressly admonished Defendant that the Protective Order was not optional. The undersigned further warned Defendant that any future violation of the Protective Order would be treated with the utmost seriousness, including case-dispositive sanctions.
After further proceedings concerning the amount of the award, the Court ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff $15,000.00 no later than April 26, 2026….
Separate from the Protective Order dispute, the District Court addressed Defendant's social-media activity in connection with pretrial scheduling and discovery matters. On February 10, 2026, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to take Defendant's deposition and represented that Defendant had repeatedly scheduled and cancelled depositions based on asserted physical limitations while simultaneously publishing social-media content showing him engaged in activities including ice skating, kayaking, and bicycling. The District Court granted Plaintiff additional time to take Defendant's deposition and stated that it was "deeply disturbed by this trend." The District Court cautioned Defendant that sanctions, "potentially including the striking of Defendant's pleadings," would be imposed if the conduct continued….
[In a] February 20 Order, the District Court observed that the communications between the Parties had become "toxic," particularly in light of Defendant's online communications, and agreed with Plaintiff that the time had come for the matter to proceed toward resolution. The District Court stated that it was "deeply disturbed by Defendant's conduct," including his "continued social media attacks aimed at Plaintiff and its counsel" and his attempt to effect service at an address he knew belonged to Soffer's child. The District Court then expressly "DIRECT[ED] Defendant to cease such harassing conduct and social media references to Plaintiff and its counsel during the course of this litigation." …
In the Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiff contends that Defendant continued to publish social-media content referencing Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and this litigation almost immediately after entry of the February 20 Order. Plaintiff identifies multiple occasions between February 26 and May 28, 2026, on which Defendant allegedly violated the Order. [For more details, see the opinion, but here's one example. -EV] …
The May 24, 2026 social media publications constitute perhaps the most egregious violations of the February 20 Order. To recap, in one video, Defendant alleged that a member of his family was confronted and threatened in Jerusalem by an individual who invoked Plaintiff's counsel. Defendant specifically identified Plaintiff's counsel as the attorney representing the hotel in this action and asserted that this lawsuit was filed to "intimidate and silence him" after he publicly alleged that he had been threatened with murder in an antisemitic attack. Defendant further stated that it "remains unknown whether anyone connected to the ongoing litigation had prior knowledge of, encouraged, or otherwise played any role in the confrontation" and that he "has endured nearly two years of legal and public harassment by [Plaintiff's counsel] and the hotel in an effort to financially and personally destroy him after speaking out about the alleged antisemitic attack."
In the other May 24, 2026 post, Defendant referred to Plaintiff, Soffer, and Plaintiff's counsel, Burstyn, by name, and questioned whether Burstyn appeared in materials associated with Jeffrey Epstein. The post also referenced Burstyn's representation of another client, questioned Burstyn's role in events preceding the death of Virginia Giuffre, criticized Burstyn's representation of Plaintiff, and concluded with an assertion concerning public distrust of attorneys, stating that Plaintiff's counsel "is the reason that 84% of Americans believe that attorneys are scumbags."
These posts did not merely allude to Plaintiff—they expressly identified Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and the upcoming trial. They therefore violated both components of the District Court's directive. They constituted social-media references to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel, and they also plainly continued the very social-media attacks that prompted the District Court's intervention. These publications therefore fall squarely within the conduct the District Court sought to halt and cannot reasonably be characterized as compliance with the February 20 Order….
