§Why CasetextPricing

ZIMMERMAN v. AL JAZEERA AMERICA, LLC et al

REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Compel

24 Cited authorities

  1. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

    418 U.S. 323 (1974)   Cited 3,876 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a private defamation plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages without proving actual malice

  2. Herbert v. Lando

    441 U.S. 153 (1979)   Cited 1,587 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the relevancy of deposing a defendant publisher in a defamation case about his conduct and mental state could "hardly be doubted" even if the defendant was unlikely to admit to liable conduct in the deposition

  3. Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton

    491 U.S. 657 (1989)   Cited 909 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the standard for "reckless disregard" for the truth in a defamation action by a public figure "is a subjective one," requiring that "the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication," or that "the defendant actually had a high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity"

  4. Reuber v. Food Chemical News, Inc.

    925 F.2d 703 (4th Cir. 1991)   Cited 100 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the privilege exists so that the press is not punished for serving its basic function

  5. Jankovic v. Int'l Crisis Grp.

    822 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir. 2016)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that the assertion a writer had "concocted a pre-conceived storyline ... fails to establish actual malice"

  6. Harris v. Koenig

    271 F.R.D. 356 (D.D.C. 2010)   Cited 45 times
    Holding re-deposing a designee in her personal, rather than corporate, capacity does not implicate Rule 30

  7. Zimmerman v. Al Jazeera Am., LLC

    246 F. Supp. 3d 257 (D.D.C. 2017)   Cited 22 times
    Concluding that complaint alleged actual malice where defendants relied on single source who recanted his allegations multiple times prior to publication and defendants had not investigated or corroborated his statements, but finding it a "close question"

  8. St. John v. Napolitano

    274 F.R.D. 12 (D.D.C. 2011)   Cited 21 times
    Finding the factors for a Rule 35 analysis "equally applicable for analyzing whether or not an emotional distress claim is ‘garden variety’ in the waiver context"

  9. Sourgoutsis v. U.S. Capitol Police

    323 F.R.D. 100 (D.D.C. 2017)   Cited 5 times

    [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] R. Scott Oswald, John T. Harrington, Jr., The Employment Law Group, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Kelly M. Scindian, Rafique O. Anderson, Office of Employment Counsel, Washington, DC, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBIN M. MERIWEATHER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pending before the Court is Movant Capitol Police Board’s (" Movant" or " CPB" ) Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order (" Motion to Quash" ) [ECF No. 15], which

  10. Parsi v. Daioleslam

    890 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D.D.C. 2012)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Civil Action No. 08–705(JDB). 2012-09-13 Trita PARSI and National Iranian American Council, Plaintiffs, v. Seid Hassan DAIOLESLAM, Defendant. Afshin Pishevar, Farrokh Mohammadi, Jeffrey Handelsman, Pishevar & Associates, P.C., Rockville, MD, for Plaintiffs. Bradford A. Berenson, Harold L. Rogers, Peter G. Jensen, Thomas Edward Ross, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, Scott F. Craig, Law Office of Scott F. Craig, Beverly Hills, CA, Timothy E. Kapshandy, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 95,025 times   653 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Rule 36 - Requests for Admission

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 36   Cited 6,092 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"