1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

LARRY KLAYMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUDICIAL WATCH

Defendant.

Case No: 1:13-cv-20610-CMA

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY AND MEMORANDUM

TO CORRECT MISSTATEMENTS TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED REPLY BRIEF IN

FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, Larry Klayman, moves this honorable Court for leave to file a Surreply to

Defendant Judicial Watch’s Amended Reply Brief in Further Support of Motion for Summary

Judgment since the Amended Reply Brief misstates fact and law in several instances.

First, the revised affidavit does authenticate the date of publication on Orly Taitz’s

website, “World’s Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site”, particularly since it attaches

the actual publication as an exhibit and then authenticates it. Nor is the affidavit conclusory. It

gets right to the point and attests to what Ruffley and Judicial Watch told Taitz to publish to

Klayman’s donors.

Second, Defendant Judicial Watch inaccurately states that Plaintiff Klayman has not

shown malice. This too is inaccurate, as the publication of Judicial Watch’s Ruffley to Taitz says

the false and misleading information about Klayman’s “conviction” for a crime should be given

to donors. What could be more malicious than this; an overt and blatant attempt to harm

Klayman financially as well as harm his reputation. That Judicial Watch states that this was not

reasonably foreseeable, is also misleading. Telling Taitz to tell Klayman’s donors about his

Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2014 Page 1 of 3

Friend

s of T

heFog

bow.co

m

PDFaid.Com#1 Pdf Solutions

2

“conviction” is obviously a direct instruction by Judicial Watch’s Ruffley to Taitz to publish

what Judicial Watch’s Ruffley falsely told Taitz. In addition, an email from Ruffley to her

superiors at Judicial Watch talks about celebrating Klayman’s having left. Ruffley also testified

that she thinks of Klayman “morbidly.” Ruffley Deposition at 51. Specifically Ruffley

maliciously wrote, “Gee whiz, it’s been just 9 ½ years since [Plaintiff] left [Judicial Watch].

Should there be a 10-year anniversary on 9/23? <grin> [sic].” Importantly, this malicious

correspondence between Ruffley and her Judicial Watch superiors was only provided to Plaintiff

after Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a computer expert to search for obviously withheld emails

and other documents during document production. In any event, the publication is libel per se,

and actual malice need not be shown. See Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, Inc., 66 So. 2d

495, 497 (Fla. 1953); Wolfson v. Kirk, 273 So. 2d 774 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1973).

Third, as set forth in Plaintiff’s opposition, Judicial Watch miscites and mischaracterizes

the cases which it relies on to assert the substantial truth doctrine. Plaintiff’s Opp. To Def’s Mo.

For Summ. Judgment at pgs. 15-19. Regrettably this Surreply is necessary as Judicial Watch

once again misrepresents the facts and holdings of these cases. In any event, this is an issue for

the jury to decide, not the trial judge, as the cases show where a jury has been requested, as is

true here.

When a plaintiff requests a jury trial, it is not generally for the district court to decide

whether a statement is defamatory or not. “It is only when the court can say that the publication

is not reasonably capable of any defamatory meaning and cannot be reasonably understood in

any defamatory sense that it can rule as a matter of law, that it was not libelous.” Levy v.

American Mut. Ins. Co., 196 A.2d 475, 476 (D.C. 1964) (Emphasis added); Weyrich v. New

Republic, Inc., 235 F.3d 617, 627 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “[I]f the language is capable of two

Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2014 Page 2 of 3

Friend

s of T

heFog

bow.co

m

3

meanings, one actionable and the other not, it is for the jury to determine which of the two

meanings would be attributed to it by persons of ordinary understanding under the

circumstances.” Levy, 196 A.2d at 476 (Emphasis added). “[A] jury must determine whether

these impressions were actually conveyed, whether they were false, and whether the letters

were motivated by actual malice.” White v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F.2d 512, 525 (D.C.

Cir. 1990); see also Dunn v. Gannett New York Newspapers, Inc., 833 F.2d 446, 449 (3d Cir.

1987) (“if the language at issue is ‘capable of both a defamatory and a nondefamatory meaning,

there exists a question of fact for the jury.’”). Defendant Judicial Watch conspicuously omits this

law in its Amended Reply Brief.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Klayman respectfully moves for leave to file this Surreply to

correct misstatements of fact and law as set forth in Defendant Judicial Watch’s Amended Reply

Brief.1

Judicial Watch does not consent to this motion.

Dated: March 31, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Larry Klayman

LARRY KLAYMAN

2520 Coral Way, Suite 2027

Miami, FL 33145

(310) 595-0800

leklayman@gmail.com

Plaintiff Pro Se

1 Plaintiff Larry Klayman apologizes to this Court for some filing errors that have occurred

recently. There has been illness in the office and Plaintiff travels frequently. Accordingly, we

thank the Court for its patience.

Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2014 Page 3 of 3

Friend

s of T

heFog

bow.co

m