twelve b six motion even though they complain it stated up valid cause of action for defamation the district court was required to accept all of the material allegations in the complaint as being true and not required to  their relationship between the two ladies the fact that your original hand written a letter i mean what do you mean by publishing what does it mean to publish writing a friend so what does it mean to publish everything we vising letter and get spaced letter to a third party to drop in and help box for example dr smith's obviously in this case the person giving the letter over defendant didn't give it over to a third party give it back to the author of the letter to person whose name was on the letter that's not the same as giving over to a third party as we believe that the evidence in this case shows and will show by inference is contained when you look at all of the facts to relationships here that jane r requires dissemination to a third party in this case the letter was sent to the c e o of cigna by dr smith and jane ruggles testified that she knew that a letter was being mailed and that she testified that she had the fairly testify for example that she knew that the letter contained the american online address for dr smith at the bottom of each page she also testified that she had known that when she was typing the letter she would have deleted the l address at the bottom of the page she testified that based on her communications with dr smith now you have to keep the facts are in context jane russell is not just a mere typist austin aga for a paid people in an agency relationship in a master servant relationship who typed the letters for a living as opposed to jane rocca who no one was not getting paid to type the letter to had lived and had known dr smith over the years wh this i don't think there is one that says under these circumstances or similar ones that the actions constitute publication to a third party within the meaning of defamation law there is not a case on point there are cases that hol like correct we don't know the truth because when i do post misra go and try to find out the extent of our involvement with the latter she claimed to be a paralegal for a doctor in the us attorney you were asked the question if she gave that makes a difference well i can't conceive for example that that someone for example who was knowingly and recklessly types a defamatory publication and knows that that publication is going to be sent out  that that the fact that the person alone did not send the letter himself or herself absolves that person from defamation because otherwise they will prevail quickly under that logic it would give immunity to anyone who types of defamatory letter who then says well i didn't know it was going to be sent out i didn't know whether our if i gave it to my cleaning lady she was actually going to drop it in the post office or not i can't imagine that that that this would be an affirmative defense to publication simply saying well yeah i researched the facts into the letter and yes i typed that but i didn't know whether it was going to be mailed or not now for example if jane russell refused to answer questions claiming that attorney fine and work product privileges she claimed to be a paralegal for dr smith's attorney when i asked specific questions in her deposition about her involvement with the letter i believe that i try or fact or at least for the purposes of a motion for summary judgment judgment that plaintiff did not meet its burden to show publication based on the deposition testimony but for the purposes of a twelve b six motion that the complaint raises the elements of defamation and i think that they rely on the exhibit attached to the complaint as evidence that all she did was type the letter and i think there are other facts concerning the relationship invocation of the privilege in connection with the conversations with smith testimony contradicts the essence of the complaint the publication because she testified that she only typed the letter i don't believe that the deposition exhibit contradicts the material allegations in the complaint it's assert that the amount of controversy exceeded seventy five thousand it's not in your complaint aletha defendants raise the jurisdiction and they offer a judgment federal rule applies only to defendants anyway so that argument o plead anywhere that the amount of controversy exceeded seventy five thousand it's not a complaint that i can find and i can't find anything else in the record so we're left with this this is this other issue but but i just wanted to please the court as you heard from the appellants arguments he has not yet failed to see the claim upon which relief can be granted there are no allegations of fact contained in the complaint th  to the complaint the letter clearly shows that it was signed by and stand by mr smith clearly the when you take the complaint and the attachments together it is clear that it was mr smith the publishing whether she published by communicating or aiding and abetting the communication to third parties have said that would that have been enough that i believe would have been enough to at least get back past without if those attachments were not the deposition testimony  type it out it's got signed vice the attorney the author and then the secretary is actually the one that puts the stamp on it but i don't think that makes them responsible for disseminating the information they're just merely following through the directive of the person cause of action and he also asserts that you know had he been given time to uncover and do some discovery that he would have uncovered or somehow been able to meet the standards in the of the cause of action defamation but he had full opportunity and paul versus nets to take mr goss testimony he took his or sworn testimony in a deposition and she testified in trial he knows all the facts he knows what but her story is he has a testimony he's going to cover something he had that opportunity still hasn't amended the complaint or or alleged anything that would constitute publishing on the part of my client was merely typing she was just typing a letter for a friend she didn't know if they were true but if they were true they are serious allegations and she conceded that but he misconstrues this into trying to make this claim that she was somehow assisting and somehow knew that these allegations defamatory l account but this doesn't mean that this was published to anyone to anyone an l l on line this isn't like being on line where someone could see the letter and there's no allegation that anyone on the haleigh line a o l was no so this allegation that it was done on a o l an address and on line account that could have been disseminated as is mere speculation and there's been no proof and no allegation that anyone on a i don't know of any federal rule of civil procedure that requires appealing to a defamation action that contains quote some kind of factual action constituted publication publishing this is not a fraud case and requires pleading with s ificity under rule ninety it's enough to simply say that someone published as paragraph a ten correctly state to two third parties editors of newspapers for example are often held individually liable for defamation even though they defamation is that everyone who takes a responsible part in the publication is liable for the defamation the court went on to state it quote every person who either directly or indirectly publishers or