Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
48. Is the court likely to grant the reporter's motion for summary judgment?
The reporter moved for summary judgment. In support of his motion, the reporter offered an affidavit from himself. In the affidavit, the reporter explained that he had tried his best to put into words his experience with the loudspeakers, that he was unaware that his statements were «false,» and that he was not indifferent to whether his review was «true» or not. The manufacturer did not respond to the reporter's motion by providing any evidence to contradict the reporter's statements.
A manufacturer of loudspeaker systems filed suit in federal district court against a reporter for a consumer-product testing organization. The suit arose following the publication of the reporter's review of the manufacturer's loudspeakers. The court ruled that the manufacturer was a «public figure» and thus had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the reporter made a false and disparaging statement about the speakers with «actual malice.» «Actual malice» requires knowledge that one is making a false statement or reckless disregard of the truthfulness of one's statement.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
If one party is able to show there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact in the lawsuit and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, he may be awarded judgment through a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 56 motion for summary judgment. The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidence that clearly establishes there is no factual dispute for a jury to resolve.
The movant (the person seeking summary judgment) may show the lack of a genuine issue of fact by submitting affidavits. They must only contain matters that the affiant has personal knowledge, must state only matters that would be admissible at trial, and must show the affiant is competent to testify at trial. The movant may also submit the fruits of discovery no matter which side they were obtained from.
The party opposing the summary judgment motion may also submit affidavits, depositions, and other materials, which must meet the same standards as those prescribed for materials submitted by the movant. If the affidavits of the movant show no genuine material dispute for trial, the opposing party may not avoid summary judgment merely by repeating his pleadings' denial of the allegations put forth in the movant's affidavits.
In this scenario, the non-movant must either:
(i) point to specific places in the record showing the fact in question is disputed; OR
(ii) demonstrate that the movant will not be able to produce admissible evidence to establish the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A)-(B).
A is correct. The function of a motion for summary judgment is to dispose of issues raised by the pleadings as to which there is no genuine factual dispute. The moving party asserts that there are no triable issues of fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Here, the manufacturer has shown no ability to undermine the reporter's credibility, and the manufacturer has the burden of proving actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. As such, the manufacturer has not met the requirements to defeat the reporter's motion for summary judgment.
B is incorrect. This is the correct conclusion, but incorrect legal reasoning. The court is likely to grant the motion, but not because the manufacturer acted in bad faith. Nothing in the fact pattern indicates that the manufacturer acted in bad faith. The manufacturer's failure to respond to the reporter's motion, while perhaps a poor litigation strategy, does not rise to the level of bad faith.
C is incorrect. This is an incorrect statement of the law. Parties ARE permitted to support a motion for summary judgment with their own affidavit, as long as their affidavit meets the FRCP requirements of an affidavit. Affidavits must be made with personal knowledge, set forth on facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify.
Here, the reporter's affidavit meets these requirements by averring that he tried his best to put into words his own experience with the manufacturer's loudspeakers, that the reporter did not know his statements were false, and that he was NOT indifferent as to whether his review was true. These statements are based on the reporter's personal knowledge, which would be admissible as evidence, and there is no indication the reporter would be incompetent to testify.
D is incorrect. This is also a misstatement of the law. The FRCP do not give a court the authority to order a non-moving party to respond to a motion for summary judgment as this choice indicates. Therefore, the court could not order the manufacturer to respond to the reporter's motion in this case.