Doxxing victim argues to revive claims against comedian Kathy Griffin

CINCINNATI (CN) — Fired in the wake of an argument with rowdy high school students, including a teenage boy in a prom dress, a former executive says Kathy Griffin's tweets give him standing to pursue tort claims in Tennessee against the California-based comedian.

Samuel Johnson, then-CEO of the software company VisuWell, was enjoying dinner with his family at the Harpeth Hotel in Franklin, Tenn. on April 24, 2021, when he crossed paths with a group of teenagers on their prom night.

According to Johnson, he asked the group's chaperone to keep the teens under control on his way to the bathroom, and several individuals, including Jacob Geittmann, took exception.

Geittmann, whose boyfriend Dalton Stevens wore a red gown that night, approached Johnson while several others began filming the confrontation.

Video of the incident, during which Johnson smiles while making what the teens called homophobic comments, gained little traction on social media until Griffin shared it.

She posted the video on X, formerly Twitter, with the caption, "If this is Sam Johnson in Nashville, Tennessee, the CEO of @VisuWell, healthcare-tech-growth strategist, married to Jill Johnson where they may reside in Franklin, Tennessee, it seems like he's dying to be online famous."

Johnson was fired by VisuWell the same day Griffin posted her messages on social media. He and his wife sued the comedian a year later in federal court.

U.S. District Judge William Campbell Jr., an appointee of Donald Trump, granted Griffin's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in March 2023.

In a terse opinion, Campbell determined the comedian lacked sufficient contacts within the state of Tennessee to establish jurisdiction over the Johnsons' claims, which included tortious interference, emotional distress and harassment.

"There are no allegations in the complaint that Griffin's tweets were directed at Tennessee readers, as opposed to the residents of other states, or that Griffin posted her tweets hoping to reach Tennessee specifically as opposed to her two million Twitter followers generally," the judge said.

Attorney Todd McMurtry of Hemmer, Wessels, and McMurtry in Fort Mitchell, Ky. argued Tuesday before a Sixth Circuit panel. He was immediately confronted with previous caselaw from the appeals court involving Griffin and high school students from a Covington, Ky. high school.

"We tend to respect precedent," Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton said. "We tend to respect precedent involving the same party even more."

Sutton, a George W. Bush appointee, cited the court's 2021 decision in Blessing v. Chandrasekhar, upholding a federal court's dismissal of privacy claims brought by the high school students involved in a standoff with Native American activist Nathan Phillips in front of the Washington Monument.

McMurtry attempted to distinguish the Johnsons' claims. He pointed out Griffin never sent tweets to specific individuals in Kentucky, whereas in the present dispute, she tagged VisuWell in several tweets to confirm Johnson's termination.

To Senior U.S. Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., a Clinton appointee, "it seems that everybody wants to tweet about something," and Griffin's comments "were about a matter of public concern."

"From the other side," he continued, "[her tweets] are largely an appeal to her nationwide base to be vigilant."

McMurtry disputed that assessment and labeled the tweets "tortious speech," while also emphasizing public concern is typically used as a defense against defamation claims.

Attorney Mike Grygiel of the Albany, New York firm Greenberg Taurig argued on behalf of Griffin and faced challenges from the panel starting from the outset of his remarks.

U.S. Circuit Judge Amul Thapar, a Trump appointee, said the "brunt of the injury" was felt in Tennessee and stressed the importance of the comedian's decision to "tag" Johnson's employer in her tweets.

"If you tag them," he reasoned, "you're saying you want your followers to take them down, essentially."

Grygiel saw it differently.

"I view the tweets as Ms. Griffin expressing her opinion," the attorney said. "Ms. Griffin was not communicating with sources in Tennessee."

Grygiel focused on the fact Griffin published the tweets to her followers, and argued they did not constitute direct communication with VisuWell, but Sutton disagreed.

He posed a hypothetical scenario in which someone sent a letter or email directly to a company's board of directors to get an executive fired, which he said would likely establish jurisdiction for tort claims.

Grygiel said Sutton's analysis of the case "misconceives the functionality of Twitter" because Griffin did not send a direct communication to the VisuWell board.

"I don't care," Sutton clapped back. "Why does it inoculate your client if eight million people see it but not the board?"

"[A letter] is reaching out directly," the attorney answered. "That is not what happened here."

"Elon Musk will be happy," Thapar quipped.

Sutton asked Griffin's attorney what type of tweets would subject his client to the jurisdiction of a Tennessee court.

"Purposeful direction of the message to Tennessee, not to a nationwide audience," Grygiel answered.

In his rebuttal, McMurtry seized on Sutton's hypothetical to drive his point home.

"The tweet was essentially an email to VisuWell with a CC to her two million followers," he told the panel. "When you send something to the board and try to shame someone, it leads to a sort of cancellation event."

Both of the Johnsons were present in court for Tuesday's arguments.

The panel did not set a timetable for its decision.

Follow @@kkoeninger44

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit