Posted on 12/03/2016 11:05:35 AM PST by rktman
Def’s motion is a standard D motion to dismiss.
It has some legal merit in this case.
Def’s are asking court to declare that an act of editing, so as the final broadcast element does not truly reflect events as they occur, so as to make Plaintiffs appear less favorable, does not rise to the same legal statutory standard level under applicable state law as making an actual statement about them that is defamatory and untrue.
As much as I hate what Katie C did, it is a meritorious motion. Whatever the court decides will be appealed.
Remember, never expect the law to be logical.
Here’s the Complaint:
https://www.scribd.com/document/324716805/Virginia-Citizens-Defense-League-v-Katie-Couric-et-al-Defamation-Complaint
I haven’t seen the motion to dismiss but suspect it was a standard allegation that the complaint failed to state grounds upon which relief could be granted.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_12
From what little I know of the matter, it looks like Kate and her employer and eventually going to cut the plaintiff a nice fat check.
This may be the only way to curb the MSM. Sue the b*******s.
Of course she would. LIBs never accept any accountability and consequence.
Oh, I’m sure she could get a loan from somewhere, then work it off doing table dances or some such labor for the next 50 years.
Oh, and as Bill Frady said on his radio show about this last night:
“VCDL’s lawyers wouldn’t have taken this case if they didn’t think that they could win it.”
I imagine that she would.
Outcome will depend, to a great degree, on the ruling on this motion. Non-prevailing party will appeal, of course.
Much Def’s motion may prevail in this case. I do not know if there is any case law covering “libelous editing,” but if there is not, and the law requires a libelous statement (verbal, written, etc), a specific act of commission, then Ps have a high hill to climb.
Hard to predict this one, because if there is no case law on such editing, or prior settlements because of it, MSM may not want to establish a precedent here, even if Ps were willing to settle for small amount.
At a minimum, there will be at least 30 months of “The Lawyer Dance” before anything is finalized.
Be well.
The right to edit interviewees responses by publishers/broadcasters is well established. This action opens all sorts of new areas.
Also, much depends on the business relationship between Def C and the production company, and who accomplished the editing. Assuming Def C was an employee, and did not control final edited broadcast, her lawyer can get her off this pretty easily.
Problem for the Ps then is, does production company have any $ to recover against? Am surprised Ps are not going after whatever entity broadcast (legally “published”) the story. That’s were the $ are.
LOL! You just now playin catch up? I posted that so long ago I forgot about it. But thanks.
searching before posting a topic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.