It’s not much of an update. I checked around yesterday to see if anything had happened in the defamation lawsuit filed by Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily against Esquire magazine, who had published a spoof article saying that Jerome Corsi’s book, Where’s the Birth Certificate?, was being recalled and pulped.
I speculated whether the District of Columbia’s anti-SLAPP legislation would apply in this suit in my article “The Empire SLAPPs Back.” WorldNetDaily reports that a decision in the DC District Court case of 3M Company v. Boulter concluded that the DC Anti-SLAPP Act of 2010 does not apply in federal cases. WND wrote (clarification added):
A federal court’s recent ruling that the District of Columbia’s anti-defamation statute does not apply in federal cases [sitting in diversity] could help move forward a federal lawsuit brought by WND against Esquire magazine….
Oh by the way, Farah’s lawyer is none other than Larry Klayman.
Klayman sent the DC Circuit Court notice of the 3M case on February 20. This is what he said:
This is to advise this Court that on February 2, 2012, this Court ruled in 3M Corporation v. Boulter, No. 11-cv-1527 (RLW) (D.D.C.) (Exhibit 1) that the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act does not apply in this Court, and, as a result, denying the Special Motion to Dismiss under the Anti-SLAPP Act filed by the defendants in that case. It is now the law of this Court that the Anti-SLAPP Act is not applicable. Thus, the Court should respectfully summarily deny Defendant’s special motion to dismiss, which was filed on August 26, 2011, so that discovery may proceed.
Hearst Publishing on February 24 sent the court its own supplemental authority memorandum and commented:
This [Plaintiff’s] conclusion [that SLAPP is inapplicable] is deeply flawed for several reasons, not least that Judge Leon’s opinion [in DC] (and three federal circuits) reached precisely the opposite conclusion.
Judge Leon in Sherrod v. Breitbart had ruled that the DC Anti-SLAPP act was substantive which would lead to the conclusion that the Erie doctrine applies and therefore Anti-SLAPP motions are allowed even though Judge Leon didn’t allow SLAPP in Sherrod for other reasons.
On April 16, plaintiffs moved to have the order staying discovery vacated (removed).