Letter to the Editor: When Litigants Need to Rebut Defamatory Statements
Sometimes First Amendment rights to rebut and set the record straight need to be exercised by parties in litigation before a verdict in order to effectively defend reputation on a timely basis.
March 06, 2018 at 12:50 AM
2 minute read
Note: This letter from Lanny Davis is in response to my Feb. 28 column, Who Needs a Courtroom if You've Got a Podcast? For the record, I did reach out to Davis for comment the day before my deadline, but he did not respond until after publication.
To the Editor of The American Lawyer's Litigation Daily:
Your article published on February 28 about Versata's use of podcasts and other public media to defend the reputation of its software product, which evidence shows saved Ford over $1 billion, raised the question whether it is necessary to make a timely rebuttal in the media of defamatory statements made in legal pleadings, which are absolutely protected from defamation actions, rather than wait for the verdict.
I respectfully suggest that waiting for the verdict in Versata's litigation against Ford is an inadequate remedy to correct the harmful effects of defamatory statements about its software product.
Our position is that when Ford publicly asserts falsely in its legal papers that Versata's ACM software product was inferior and unoriginal, that assertion needs to be immediately rebutted, and cannot wait for a verdict. The harm to reputation among current and future customers is made worse in the age of the Internet where Google searches magnify misinformation so many times that by the time the truth catches up in a verdict or headlines many months away, the repair to false accusations that harm a product's reputation will be too late.
Moreover, verdicts in litigation are hardly always clear rebuttals to many factual misstatements. More often the verdict is ambiguous.
So sometimes First Amendment rights to rebut and set the record straight need to be exercised by parties in litigation before a verdict in order to effectively defend reputation on a timely basis. This is especially so where one party seems to use the absolute immunity rule not as a “shield” to guarantee a free flow of legal arguments and facts to determine a verdict, but rather, as a “sword” to immunize false and damaging statements made in legal proceedings.
Sincerely,
Lanny J. Davis
Attorney for Versata
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Brevet Capital Responds to Articles Tying its Suit to COVID-19 Privacy Issues
3 minute read
Letter to the Editor: Lawyer for British Caver Who Sued Musk Claims 'Justice Worked' Despite Defense Verdict
Litigator Cris Arguedas on 'What It Takes to Be a Trial Lawyer if You're Not a Man'
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Brogdon: The Final Nail in Corbin’s Coffin in Premises Cases
- 2What to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
- 3'Quiet, Appropriate End:' NY Court of Appeals Formally Removes Erin Gall From Bench
- 4Just One Cookie? Justices to Decide Liability for Half-Truths
- 540% Contingency: A New Ruling Just Cost This Plaintiff Team $827K in Legal Fees
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
