Klayman v Judicial Watch FLSD 1:13-cv-20610-109

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 13-20610-CIV-ALTONAGA/Simonton

LARRY E. KLAYMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

JOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION

Pursuant to this Court’s Order dated July 19, 2013, the parties submit the following Joint

Pre-Trial Stipulation:

(1) A short concise statement of the case by each party in the action.

(a) Plaintiff’s Statement

Plaintiff Larry Klayman brought this lawsuit against Defendant Judicial Watch for defamation,

defamation by implication, tortious interference with current and prospective professional and

business opportunities, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The action arises out

of statements made by Constance Ruffley, an employee of Judicial Watch, which were made in

the scope of her employment as office administrator, which were ordered to be made or were

ratified by Judicial Watch, and which were intended to be published to donors that were to fund

lawsuits filed in Florida, elsewhere and potentially elsewhere, over the eligibility of a political

candidate to run for office and others, which misleadingly and falsely represented that Klayman

had been convicted of a crime. Specifically the misleading and false statements, which

constitutes libel or defamation per se, defamation, defamation by implication, and which caused

the other pleaded torts, were intended to be published widely in Florida, domestically and

internationally on a leading eligibility website owned and operated by Orly Taitz. The website is

called the “World’s Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site”. The false and misleading

statements were “ . . . that donors should know about litigation in Ohio, where he was convicted

just recentlty [sic] of not paying large amount in child support.” Ms. Ruffley and Judicial Watch

provided other actionable information to Taitz that was subsequently published.

Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 of 7

Friend

s of T

heFog

bow.co

m

PDFaid.Com#1 Pdf Solutions

http://Pdfaid.com

2

Plaintiff has never been convicted of any crime, neither in Ohio nor anywhere else, and nowhere

in the public record did it so indicate that he was, despite Defendant’s misleading or false

statements that all the information was available publicly. In fact, the court docket entries,

available online for the whole world to see, indicated the opposite; that Plaintiff was never

convicted.

The evidence will prove that Judicial Watch long sought to harm Plaintiff, and acted with malice

in having Constance Ruffley spread misleading and false information about Plaintiff and

directing Taitz to make it clear that “donors should know” about this false information about

Plaintiff. This was all done to harm the reputation, livelihood and to inflict emotional distress on

Plaintiff, as Defendant sees Plaintiff as a competitor and has had a contentious relationship with

him since Plaintiff left Judicial Watch in 2003 to run for the U.S. Senate in Florida.

Because of Defendant Judicial Watch’s actions, Plaintiff was harmed and damaged in areas

including but not limited to lost earnings and capacity, lost career and business opportunities,

litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, ostracization, humiliation, hurt

feelings, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish and distress and other

compensatory and actual damages, as well as loss of reputation in his trade and profession, and

punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.

(b) Defendant’s Statement

Defendant denies Plaintiff’s claims.

The evidence will show that at the time of the alleged statement: (A) Klayman was under

indictment by an Ohio court for failure to pay child support; (B) Klayman had been found in

contempt of court three times for failure to pay child support; and (C) a capias had been issued

based on Klayman’s failure to pay child support.

Defendant denies that it defamed plaintiff. Defendant denies that it authorized or instructed

Constance Ruffley to make any defamatory comments regarding Klayman. Defendant believes

the evidence will show that Connie Ruffley did not state that Plaintiff “had been ‘convicted’ of a

crime for not paying a large amount of child support with regard to his children” as alleged by

plaintiff. Defendant did not publish such a comment. Defendant did not authorize or reasonably

foresee the publication of such a comment on Orly Taitz’s website.

If the statement was made, as alleged by plaintiff, the statement was substantially true and not

made with actual malice. The evidence will show that defendant did not cause any damage or

loss to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has sued defendant multiple times and it is plaintiff who is seeking

to harm defendant, not defendant seeking to harm plaintiff. Furthermore, plaintiff has a history

of disagreements and confrontations with courts and judges. He prides himself on confronting

establishments. He made a conscious decision to forgo paying child support. Defendant asserts


Friend

s of T

heFog

bow.co

m

3

that Klayman sustained no reputational damage or monetary losses. Defendant is not liable for

defamation or defamation by implication.

Based on the single publication/single action rule, defendant is not liable for the claims of

tortious interference with a contract or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant

also denies plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference with a contract because it had no knowledge

of any contract and defendant did not tortuously interfere with a contract. Furthermore, the

contract was performed. Defendant denies the intentional infliction of emotion distress claim

because defendant did not engage in extreme or outrageous conduct and plaintiff did not sustain

severe emotional distress.

(2) The basis of federal jurisdiction.

The basis for federal jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC § 1332. It is a civil

action between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy herein exceeds the sum

or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

(3) The pleadings raising the issues.

The pleadings at issue are the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [D.E. 5] and the Defendant’s

Answer and Affirmative Defenses [D.E. 37]. Plaintiff notes that the following pleadings have

also been filed: Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment and all accompanying attachments, as well as the Affidavits of Orly Taitz and Larry

Klayman, which confirm the statements made to Ms. Taitz by Defendant Judicial Watch through

Constance Ruffley, as well as the website postings that were attached to the Affidavits of Orly

Taitz and Larry Klayman, the Affidavit of Constance Ruffley, and other relevant pleadings and

the depositions in transcribed and DVD format of Larry Klayman, Constance Ruffley, Thomas J.

Fitton, Paul J. Orfanedes and Christopher Farrell, as well as relevant documents. Defendant

notes that its Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed along with the accompanying

evidence and exhibits.

(4) A list of all undisposed of motions or other matters requiring action by the Court.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E. 83], which was filed on February 28, 2014 is

pending. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is fatally flawed and

should be denied as the facts at issue must be decided by a jury, at a minimum, and that if

summary judgment were warranted at this phase, it would be in favor of Plaintiff, as the alleged

defamation was libel per se and that the other tortious claims are also in Plaintiff’s favor.

Defendant continues to assert that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law. By contributing to this joint statement, Defendant is not waiving

any of its arguments or agreeing that issues of fact remain for trial. Defendant is participating in

this joint statement to comply with this Court’s order and the applicable rules of civil procedure.


Friend

s of T

heFog

bow.co

m

4

(5) A concise statement of uncontested facts which will require no proof at trial, with

reservations, if any.

The parties have not stipulated to facts.

(6) A statement in reasonable detail of issues of fact which remain to be litigated at trial.

Plaintiff asserts four claims – defamation, defamation by implication, tortious interference with a

contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

With respect to all claims, there are the following issues of fact:

Whether defendant published the alleged defamatory statements.

Whether defendant is liable for the publication of the alleged defamatory statement on as

published to Orly Taitz and then published on Orly Taitz’s website.

Whether the alleged defamatory statement is substantially true.

Whether plaintiff is a public figure.

Whether the defendant’s alleged published statements are libel per se.

Whether the defendant acted with actual malice.

Whether the plaintiff is required to prove actual malice.

Whether the alleged defamatory statement caused damage.

With respect to the tortious interference with a contract claim, there is the following additional

issue of fact:

Whether defendant was aware of the contract or professional relationships and

prospective professional relationships.

Whether defendant caused the breach or disruption of the contract or professional

relationships.

Whether the tortious interference caused damage.

With respect to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, there are the following

additional issues of fact:

Whether the defendant’s conduct was intentional or reckless.

Whether the defendant’s conduct was outrageous.

Whether the defendant’s conduct caused severe emotional distress.

Whether the alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress caused damage.

(7) A concise statement of issues of law on which there is agreement.

Per this Court’s Order of July 19, 2013, the parties are submitting jury instructions outlining the

applicable law and the extent to which the parties are in agreement.


Friend

s of T

heFog

bow.co

m

5

(8) A concise statement of issues of law which remain for determination by the Court.

Plaintiff submits that it has shown that summary judgment is not warranted as a matter of fact

and law in his opposition to the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and other pleadings.

Plaintiff submits that the issues of fact must go to the jury to decide and that summary judgment

as a matter of law is inappropriate given the facts of this case as applied to the law. Plaintiff

further states that he is not required to prove actual malice because the defamatory statements

constitute defamation per se.

Defendant submits that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for the reasons set forth in its

Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant identifies the following issues of law:

Whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the alleged

statement was substantially true.

Whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff lacks

evidence that the alleged statement was published by Defendant.


evidence that defendant authorized the publication of the alleged statement of Orly Taitz

website or that the publication was reasonably foreseeable.


evidence of actual malice.

Whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on remaining claims

because of the single publication/single action rule.

Whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the intentional infliction

of emotional distress claim because plaintiff lacks evidence of intentional, extreme or

outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress.

Whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the tortious inference

with a contract claim because plaintiff lacks evidence that Defendant knew about the

contract or professional relationship or intentionally caused the breach or disruption of

the professional relationship.

Whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the tortious inference

with a contract claim because plaintiff lacks evidence of breach or disruption of the

contract or professional relationship.

Whether plaintiff’s claims are barred by qualified privilege.

(9) Estimated trial time.

Plaintiff believes that trial will require a minimum of five days and possibly as much as seven

days. Defendant believes that trial should be completed in three days or less.


Friend

s of T

heFog

bow.co

m

6

(10) Where attorney’s fees may be awarded to the prevailing party, an estimate of each

party as to the maximum amount properly allowable.

Not applicable.

Dated: April 7, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Larry Klayman

LARRY KLAYMAN

2520 Coral Way, Suite 2027

Miami, FL 33145

(310) 595-0800

[email protected]

Plaintiff Pro Se

SCHWED KAHLE & KRESS, P.A.

11410 North Jog Road, Suite 100

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418

Telephone: (561) 694-0070

Facsimile: (561) 694-0057

/s/ Douglas J. Kress

(signed with permission)

Douglas J. Kress, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 0061146

Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendant Judicial

Watch, Inc.


Friend

s of T

heFog

bow.co

m

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 7, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing

document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF filing system. I also certify that the

foregoing document is being served this date on all counsel of record or pro se parties on the

attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic

Filing generated by the CM/ECF system or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or

parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Larry Klayman

LARRY KLAYMAN

Plaintiff Pro Se

SERVICE LIST

Douglas James Kress

Schwed Kahle & Jenks, P.A.

11410 North Jog Road

Suite 100

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418

561-694-0070

Fax: 561-694-0057

Email: [email protected]

VIA CM/ECF


Friend

s of T

heFog

bow.co

m

Klayman v Judicial Watch FLSD 1:13-cv-20610-109

Documents

Transcript of Klayman v Judicial Watch FLSD 1:13-cv-20610-109