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. Telling 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

PDFaid.Com
#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 libelous.” 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

3
meanings, one actionable and the other not, it is for the jury to determine which of the two
meanings would be attributed to it by persons of ordinary understanding under the
circumstances.” Levy, 196 A.2d at 476 (Emphasis added). “[A] jury must determine whether
these impressions were actually conveyed, whether they were false, and whether the letters
were motivated by actual malice.” White v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F.2d 512, 525 (D.C.
Cir. 1990); see also Dunn v. Gannett New York Newspapers, Inc., 833 F.2d 446, 449 (3d Cir.
1987) (“if the language at issue is ‘capable of both a defamatory and a nondefamatory meaning,
there exists a question of fact for the jury.’”). Defendant Judicial Watch conspicuously omits this
law in its Amended Reply Brief.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Klayman respectfully moves for leave to file this Surreply to
correct misstatements of fact and law as set forth in Defendant Judicial Watch’s Amended Reply
Brief.
1

Judicial Watch does not consent to this motion.

Dated: March 31, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Larry Klayman
LARRY KLAYMAN
2520 Coral Way, Suite 2027
Miami, FL 33145
(310) 595-0800
leklayman@gmail.com

Plaintiff Pro Se


1
Plaintiff Larry Klayman apologizes to this Court for some filing errors that have occurred
recently. There has been illness in the office and Plaintiff travels frequently. Accordingly, we
thank the Court for its patience.
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2014 Page 3 of 3

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful