Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
P. 1
Opposition to National Review Motion to Dismiss

Opposition to National Review Motion to Dismiss

Ratings: (0)|Views: 23,563 |Likes:
Published by EliRabett
Mann vs. National Review
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Mann vs. National Review
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: EliRabett on Jan 20, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/20/2013

pdf

text

original

 
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIACIVIL DIVISION
 __________________________________________ )MICHAEL E. MANN, Ph.D.,))Plaintiff,)Case No.2012 CA 008263 B)Calendar No.: 10)Judge: Natalia Combs Greene)Next event: 1/25/2013v.) Initial Scheduling) Conference NATIONAL REVIEW, INC.,
et al.,
))Defendants.) __________________________________________)
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITIONTO DEFENDANTSNATIONAL REVIEW AND MARK STEYN’SMOTION TODISMISS PURSUANT TO D.C. ANTI-SLAPP ACT AND MOTION TO DISMISSPURSUANT TO D.C. SUPER. CT. CIV. R. 12(B)(6)
JOHN B. WILLIAMS (D.C. Bar No. 257667)CATHERINE ROSATO REILLY (D.C. Bar No. 1002308)COZEN O’CONNOR 1627 I Street, N.W., Suite 1100Washington, DC 20006Tel: (202) 912-4800Facsimile: (877) 260-9435 jbwilliams@cozen.comcreilly@cozen.comPETER J. FONTAINE (D.C. Bar No. 435476)1900 Market StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19103Tel: (215) 665-2723Facsimile: (866) 850-7491 pfontaine@cozen.comBERNARD S. GRIMM (D.C. Bar No. 378171)THE LAW OFFICE OF BERNARD S. GRIMM1627 I Street, N.W., Suite 1100Washington, DC 20006Tel: (202) 912-4888Facsimile: (202) 747-5633 bgrimm@grimmlawdc.com
Counsel for Plaintiff 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSI.INTRODUCTION
1
II.FACTUAL BACKGROUND
9
A.The Hockey Stick Graph
111.MBH98 And MBH99112.IPCCs Third Assessment Report –2001143.Criticism Of The Hockey Stick Graph14
B.Theft Of E-Mails From CRU
16
C.Dr. Mann Is Exonerated
191.University Of East Anglia192.The United Kingdom Parliament And The United KingdomDepartment Of State203.Pennsylvania State University214.United States Environmental Protection Agency225.United States Department Of Commerce266.National Science Foundation26
D.Defendants’ Attacks On Dr. Mann
28
III.ARGUMENT
34
A.Dr. Mann’s Lawsuit Should Not Be Dismissed Pursuant To TheDistrict Of Columbia’s Anti-SLAPP Statute
341.This Is Not The Type Of Lawsuit The Anti-SLAPP StatuteWas Meant To Protect Against342.Relevant Legal Standards363.Dr. Mann Is Likely To Prevail On The Merits Of HisDefamation Claims39
 
iia.Defendants’ Statements About Dr. Mann Are NotConstitutionally Protected Opinion41(1)Defendants Statements Are Verifiable42(2)The Context Of Defendants’ Statements Does Not Render Them Non-Actionable Opinion45(3)The “Supportable Interpretation” And “Fair Comment” Privileges Do Not Apply47(4)Defendants’ Assertion That Their StatementsMerely Raise Questions Does Not ShieldDefendants From Liability49 b.Defendants’ StatementsDo Not Qualify As“Rhetorical Hyberbole”50c.CEI Is Liable For Republishing National Review’sComments534.Dr. Mann Is Likely To Succeed On The Merits Of HisIntentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress Claim55
B.Dr. Mann’s Lawsuit Should Not Be Dismissed Pursuant To Rule12(b)(6)
561.Relevant Legal Standards572.Dr. Mann Sufficiently Pled Facts Supporting APlausibleFinding That The CEI Defendants Acted With Actual MaliceWhen They Defamed Dr. Mann58
C.Defendants’ Motion IsFrivolous And Dr. Mann Should BeAwarded Attorneys’ Fees
59
IV.CONCLUSION
60

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->