A New York appellate court has upheld sanctions against Danah Almayouf in a defamation case brought by social media influencer Rawan Abdullah Abuzaid, also known as Model Roz. The court ruled on October 27, 2026, that Almayouf failed to comply with court orders regarding the production of documents and evidence relevant to the case. This ruling has significant implications for the ongoing litigation and highlights the importance of adhering to court directives in legal proceedings.
The case, Abuzaid v. Almayouf, was filed in 2019 and centers around allegations of defamation made by Abuzaid against Almayouf. The dispute escalated when Almayouf allegedly made derogatory statements about Abuzaid on social media platforms. As the case progressed, Abuzaid sought various documents and evidence from Almayouf to support her claims, but Almayouf did not comply with the court's orders, leading to the sanctions.
The appellate court's decision stems from two key orders issued by the Supreme Court of New York County. The first order, entered on April 20, 2024, granted Abuzaid's motion for sanctions under CPLR 3126, which allows for penalties when a party fails to comply with discovery obligations. This order required Almayouf to produce specific documents, identify any lost or destroyed documents, and provide electronic devices used to publish statements about Abuzaid for forensic examination. The court warned that failure to comply would result in further sanctions, including the preclusion of evidence at trial.
The second order, issued on January 6, 2025, further sanctioned Almayouf by precluding her from offering any evidence not produced in response to the court's orders. The court also ordered that a negative inference be drawn regarding any evidence that was not produced, striking Almayouf's answer and requiring her to pay Abuzaid's attorneys' fees related to the motion. The court affirmed both orders without costs.
The appellate court found that the motion court acted within its discretion in directing discovery and imposing sanctions due to Almayouf's chronic noncompliance. The ruling noted that Almayouf admitted during her deposition in January 2022 that she had not produced several categories of documents requested by Abuzaid, including social media posts relevant to the claims. The court emphasized that Almayouf's failure to comply with the July 2022 order, which directed her to produce the missing documents, warranted the sanctions imposed.
In its opinion, the court stated, "The motion court providently exercised its discretion in directing discovery and awarding discovery sanctions for defendant's chronic noncompliance with her discovery obligations." The court also noted that Almayouf's concerns about safety did not excuse her failure to produce the requested documents, as she could have sought a protective order if necessary.
The court further affirmed the imposition of sanctions, including the striking of Almayouf's answer, due to her repeated noncompliance with court orders. The ruling highlighted that a pro se litigant, like Almayouf, does not have greater rights than any other litigant and cannot ignore court orders. The appellate court reinforced that Almayouf's conduct, including her derogatory social media posts about Abuzaid, demonstrated a lack of cooperation with the legal process.
The impact of this ruling is significant for both parties involved in the case. For Abuzaid, the court's decision strengthens her position by allowing her to proceed without the burden of Almayouf's unproduced evidence. For Almayouf, the ruling serves as a reminder of the consequences of failing to comply with discovery obligations and court orders. It also underscores the importance of maintaining professionalism and cooperation in legal proceedings, especially in cases involving public figures.
Going forward, the sanctions imposed on Almayouf may affect her ability to defend herself in the ongoing defamation case. The court's ruling allows Abuzaid to draw negative inferences from Almayouf's noncompliance, potentially weakening Almayouf's defense. This case may also set a precedent for how courts handle discovery violations in defamation cases, particularly those involving social media and public figures.
As for what’s next, Almayouf may seek to appeal the court's decision, although the appellate court has already affirmed the lower court's orders. There may also be related motions pending regarding the determination of attorneys' fees and costs associated with the sanctions. The outcome of these proceedings will further shape the legal landscape surrounding this high-profile defamation case.
