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.
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.