Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Klayman v Judicial Watch FLSD 1:13-cv-20610-103

Klayman v Judicial Watch FLSD 1:13-cv-20610-103

Ratings: (0)|Views: 42|Likes:
Published by AnitaMariaS
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY AND MEMORANDUM
TO CORRECT MISSTATEMENTS TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED REPLY BRIEF IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 3/31/2014, 1:13-cv-20610
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY AND MEMORANDUM
TO CORRECT MISSTATEMENTS TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED REPLY BRIEF IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 3/31/2014, 1:13-cv-20610

More info:

Published by: AnitaMariaS on Apr 01, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

04/28/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
LARRY KLAYMAN, Plaintiff, v. JUDICIAL WATCH Defendant. Case No: 1:13-cv-20610-CMA
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY
AND MEMORANDUM TO CORRECT MISSTATEMENTS TO
DEFENDANT’S
AMENDED REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, Larry Klayman, moves this honorable Court for leave to file a Surreply to
Defendant Judicial Watch’s
 Amended Reply Brief in Further Support of Motion for Summary Judgment since the Amended Reply Brief misstates fact and law in several instances. First, the revised affidavit does authenticate the date of publication
on Orly Taitz’s website, “World’s Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site”,
 particularly since it attaches the actual publication as an exhibit and then authenticates it. Nor is the affidavit conclusory. It gets right to the point and attests to what Ruffley and Judicial Watch told Taitz to publish to
Klayman’s donors.
Second, Defendant Judicial Watch inaccurately states that Plaintiff Klayman has not shown malice. This too is inaccurate, as the publication of
Judicial Watch’s
Ruffley to Taitz says the false and misleading
information about Klayman’s “
conviction
 for a crime should be given to donors. What could be more malicious than this; an overt and blatant attempt to harm Klayman financially as well as harm his reputation. That Judicial Watch states that this was not reasonably foreseeable, is also misleading. Tel
ling Taitz to tell Klayman’s donors about his
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2014 Page 1 of 3
P D F a i d . C o m      
#1 Pdf Solutions                                        
 
 
2
conviction
 is obviously a direct instruction by Judicial Watch
’s Ruffley
 to Taitz to publish what
Judicial Watch’s
Ruffley falsely told Taitz. In addition, an email from Ruffley to her
superiors at Judicial Watch talks about celebrating Klayman’s having
 left. Ruffley also testified
that she thinks of Klayman “morbidly.”
Ruffley Deposition at 51. Specifically Ruffley maliciously wrote
, “Gee whiz, it’s been just 9 ½ years since [Plaintiff] left [Judicial Watch].
Should there be a 10-
year anniversary on 9/23? <grin> [sic].” Importantly,
this malicious correspondence between Ruffley and her Judicial Watch superiors was only provided to Plaintiff after Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a computer expert to search for obviously withheld emails and other documents during document production. In any event, the publication is libel per se, and actual malice need not be shown. See
Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, Inc
., 66 So. 2d 495, 497 (Fla. 1953);
Wolfson v. Kirk 
, 273 So. 2d 774 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1973). Third,
as set forth in Plaintiff’s opposition, Judicial Watch miscites and
mischaracterizes the cases which it relies on to assert the substantial truth doctrine.
Plaintiff’s Opp. To Def’s Mo.
For Summ. Judgment at pgs. 15-19. Regrettably this Surreply is necessary as Judicial Watch once again misrepresents the facts and holdings of these cases. In any event, this is an issue for the jury to decide, not the trial judge, as the cases show where a jury has been requested, as is true here. When a plaintiff requests a jury trial, it is not generally for the district court to decide whether a statement is defamatory or not.
It is only when the court can say that the publication is not reasonably capable of
any
 defamatory meaning and cannot be reasonably understood in
any
 defamatory sense that it can rule as a matter of law, that it was not li
 belous.”
 
 Levy v.  American Mut. Ins. Co.
, 196 A.2d 475, 476 (D.C. 1964) (Emphasis added);
Weyrich v. New  Republic, Inc.
, 235 F.3d 617, 627 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
[I]f the language is capable of two
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2014 Page 2 of 3

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)//-->