A federal judge has ruled that attorney Mitchell Garabedian, a famed attorney who was portrayed by actor Stanley Tucci in the film "Spotlight," may face defamation claims stemming from demand letters he sent to the workplace of a man he was allegedly looking to sue for alleged sex abuse.

U.S. District Senior Judge Jan DuBois of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has ruled that statements Garabedian made to the employer of a man he was threatening to sue might not be subject to judicial immunity. The decision, which comes on a motion for reconsideration, reversed the judge's earlier ruling that had dismissed the defamation claim.

In his ruling in Doe v. Garabedian, which was placed on the docket March 13, DuBois said in his opinion that normally the lawyer's statements would be subject to immunity.

But DuBois also said the allegation that Garabedian did not plan to actually file suit against a man who was accused of sexual abuse opened up a question of fact as to whether judicial immunity should apply in the case.

Attorney Mitchell Garabedian.

"The court now concludes that there is a factual dispute as to the application of the judicial immunity privilege to the statements made by the Garabedian defendants in the two letters because, according to the second amended complaint, the statements were not made 'in the regular course of preparing for contemplated proceedings,'" DuBois said. "Accordingly, the court grants the motion for reconsideration."

The plaintiff in the case is referred to only as John Doe in court papers, and was a teacher, according to DuBois.

Doe's attorney, Lane Jubb of The Beasley Firm, said the firm was pleased with the ruling, but not surprised.

"The complaint contains factual averments sufficient to show that the defendants never actually intended to file any suit and the court recognized that judicial privilege would not apply here," Jubb said. "We intend to prosecute these claims to the fullest to try to fix the immeasurable harm done to our client."

Candidus Dougherty of Swartz Campbell did not return a message seeking comment.

Doe's suit stems from letters Garabedian sent to Doe's employer, alleging that Doe sexually abused Garabedian's client while the client was a student of Doe's 25 years earlier.

According to DuBois' opinion, Garabedian sent the first letter in April 2018 to the headmaster at the school where Doe worked. The letter, DuBois said, detailed the alleged sexual abuse and demanded $1 million to settle the claims. Then, in response to a request by an attorney for additional information, Garabedian sent another letter to Doe's school in December 2018, further describing the alleged abuse.

The abuse, according to the letters, allegedly occurred from approximately 1993 until 1995 in Doe's geometry classroom.

DuBois said that, after sending the second letter, the school and its counsel tried to contact Garabedian and his client, but were unsuccessful. The school sent Garabedian a final notice in March 2019 warning that if he did not contact the school, they would assume the defendants did not intend to pursue the claims. According to DuBois, Doe alleged Garabedian never responded, and that he never intended to file a suit against the school.

In October, DuBois ruled that the letters were subject to judicial immunity, and therefore dismissed those claims. Doe had also alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, which DuBois also dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved to have DuBois reconsider the defamation issue, arguing that the privilege only attached to claims made in the lead-up to filing a lawsuit, and so it should not come into play in Doe because Garabedian did not intend to file suit.

DuBois agreed, finding that the defamation claim should be able to proceed. He also gave the defendants leeway to potentially raise the judicial immunity issue later in the litigation.