## Facts

- Erica Almeciga participated in an investigative interview concerning her romantic partner’s alleged ties to the Los Zetas cartel.
- She alleged the media defendants orally promised to conceal her identity but later broadcast a report that disclosed it, causing humiliation and fear of retaliation.
- After a cease-and-desist letter, Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. (CIR) produced a written release purportedly signed by Almeciga authorizing use of her name and likeness.
- Almeciga denied signing the release and claimed her signature was forged.
- Almeciga retained a forensic document examiner, Wendy Carlson, who opined on authorship using an “ACE-V” approach based on comparison of signatures, including exemplars provided in court.
- CIR moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) and sought Rule 11 sanctions, including exclusion of Carlson’s testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert.

## Issues

1. Whether an alleged oral promise to conceal Almeciga’s identity was unenforceable under New York’s Statute of Frauds because it was indefinite in duration and not performable within one year.
2. Whether fraud, unjust enrichment, and related non-contract claims based on the same alleged promise were duplicative and could proceed despite the Statute of Frauds bar.
3. Whether proffered handwriting-identification testimony satisfied Federal Rule of Evidence 702 reliability requirements under Daubert and Kumho Tire.
4. Whether Almeciga (and/or her counsel) engaged in sanctionable misconduct, including fabrication amounting to fraud on the court.

## Decision

- The court granted CIR’s Rule 12(c) motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice as to all defendants.
- The court held the alleged oral confidentiality agreement was barred by New York’s Statute of Frauds because it was indefinite and not fully performable within one year.
- The court dismissed fraud and quasi-contract theories to the extent they repackaged the barred oral promise and sought the same relief.
- The court excluded Carlson’s handwriting-expert testimony under Rule 702, finding it unreliable under Daubert and Kumho Tire.
- The court imposed non-monetary sanctions on Almeciga for fraud on the court based on fabricated allegations, but declined to sanction her counsel, and declined monetary sanctions given her inability to pay.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York’s Statute of Frauds, an oral agreement that, by its terms, is indefinite in duration and cannot be fully performed within one year is unenforceable absent a writing.
- A plaintiff may not circumvent the Statute of Frauds by recasting an unenforceable contract claim as fraud, unjust enrichment, or similar non-contract theories when they are based on the same alleged promise and conduct.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires expert testimony to be grounded in reliable principles and methods and reliably applied; courts must screen experience-based forensic techniques under Daubert and Kumho Tire.
- In assessing reliability, courts consider empirical testing, known or potential error rates, peer review, and the degree of subjectivity in the method.
- Federal courts may impose sanctions for fraud on the court where a party fabricates material allegations; sanctions may be tailored and need not be monetary.

## Conclusion

The court held that an alleged oral promise by journalists to keep a source’s identity confidential was unenforceable under New York’s Statute of Frauds, rejected duplicative non-contract claims, excluded handwriting-identification testimony as unreliable under Rule 702, and sanctioned the plaintiff for fabricating core allegations while declining to sanction her counsel.


Almeciga v. Ctr. for Investigative Reporting, Inc., 185 F. Supp. 3d 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)