T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

Th e H o n o r ab l e K e v i n Th o ma s D u f f y , D i s tr i c tJ u d g e f

o rth e U . S. ** * D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orS outhe rn N e w Y ork, N e w Y ork, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T Z L T E C H N O L O G I E S , I N C ., P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. GA R T NE R GR OU P , I NC . a n d C AR OL DI C E NZ O, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 16061 D . C . N o . 5 : 0 9 -C V -0 2 3 9 3 -JF ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J e r e m y D . F oge l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a y10, 2011 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: D . W . N E L S O N and W . F L E T C H E R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and D U F F Y , D i stri ct Judg e. *** 

# FI LED MA Y13 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

Z L T ec hn ol og i es appeal s adi stri ctcourtorder grant i ng G artner G roup , Inc. ( “ G a rtne r ” ) a nd C a r ol y n D i C e nz o’ s ( “ D i C e nz o” ) m ot i on t o di s m i s s i t s de f a m a t i on a nd tr a de l i be l c l a i m s pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C i v. P . 12( b) ( 6) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. W e r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f a n a c tio n f

o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im d e n o v o a n d its d e n ia l o f le a v e to a m e n d f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . P u b lic Utility D ist. N o. 1 v. IDA C O R P Inc. , 3 7 9 F .3 d 6 4 1 , 6 4 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e th r e s h o ld qu e s tio n in th is c a s e is “w h e th e rar e a s o n ab le f a c tf in d e rc o u ld concl ud e thatthe cont es t ed st at em enti m pl i es an as se rt i on of obj ec t i ve fa ct . ” G ardne rv . M

ar t i no , 563 F . 3d 981, 987 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng U nelko C orp. v. R oo ney , 9 1 2 F .2 d 1 0 4 9 , 1 0 5 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ) . “I f th e a n s w e ris n o , th e c la im is fore cl osed by the F i rs tA m endm ent . ” P a rt i n g to n v. B u g l i o si , 56 F . 3d 1147, 1153 ( 9th C i r . 1995) . W e us e athr e e - pa rtt e s tt o r e s ol ve thi s que s t i on: “ ( 1) w he the rthe generalt enor of the ent i re w ork n egat es the i m pres si on thatthe defendantw as a s s e rtin g a n o b

je c tiv e f a c t, ( 2 ) w h e th e rth e d e f

e n d a n t u s e d f

ig u r a tiv e o rh yp e rb o lic la n g u a g e th a t n e g a te s th e im p r e s s io n , a n d ( 3 ) w h e th e rth e s ta te m e n t in q u e s tio n is susc ept i bl e of bei ng prov ed true or f al se . ” Id . ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . J u d g e d b yth is s ta n d a r d , Z L T e c h n o lo g ie s ’ c la s s if ic a tio n a s a“N ic h e P la y e r ” in G a rtn e r ’s M a g ic Q u ad ran tR ep o rt s d o es n o ti m p l y a factu al assert i o n th atZ L T ech n o l o g i es’3

pr oduc t s a r e i nf

e r i ort o i t s c om pe t i t or s ’ pr oduc t s i n t e rm s of obj e c t i ve p e r f o rm a n c e , a n d ar e a s o n ab le f a c tf in d e rc o u ld n o t c o n c lu d e o th e rw is e . T h e g e n e r a l te n o ro f

G a rtn e r ’s r e p o rts c le a r lyn e g a te s th e im p r e s s io n th a t a com pany’ s posi t i on on the M agi c Q uadrantas se rt s an o bj ec t i ve fa ct , m uch l es s an obj e c t i ve f

a c taboutthe qua l i ty of

tha tc om pa ny ’ s pr oduc t s . E a c h r e portbe gi ns w i th the di s c l a i m e rtha t“ [ t ] he opi ni ons e xpr e s s e d he r e i n a r e s ubj e c tt o c ha nge w ith o u t n o tic e .” G a rtn e ra ls o m a k e s it c le a rth a t “[ p ]la c e m e n t o n th e M a g ic Q u ad ran teach year i s b ased o n G artn er’ s v i ew o f th e v en d o r’ s p erfo rm an ce ag ai n st the cr i t er i a l i st ed. ” T he axes of the M agi c Q uadrantar e abstra ctqu al i t i es se l ec t ed by G artner: the “ abi l i ty t o execut e” and “ com pl et enes s of vi si on . ” T hese qu al i t i es ar e broken d ow n i nt o fi ft ee n d i ff er entca t egori es , al m ostal l of w hi ch ar e q u al i t at i v e i n n atu re. O n l y o n e o u to f th e fi ft een cat eg o ri es d i rect l y co n cern s a c om pa ny ’ s “ P r oduc t/ S e rvi c e , ” a nd the r e i s no i ndi c a t i on tha tG a rtne r ’ s a s s e s s m e nt i s ba s e d upon pr oduc tt e s t i ng. R a the r , G a rtne r ’ s vi e w s a r e s hape d byc onve r s a t i ons w ith “c u s to m e r s ” a n d “v e n d o r - s u p p lie d r e f e r e n c e s .” T hi s s ubj e c t i ve a nd qua l i t a t i ve appr oa c h i s notgi ve n t o the a s s e rt i on of obj e c t i ve f

a c t s , a nd a com pany’ s pl ac em enton the M agi c Q uadranti s notsusc ept i bl e of bei ng prov ed tru e o rf a ls e . C f . U nelko , 912 F . 2d a t1053- 58. T he di s tr i c tc ourtthe r e f or e di d not err i n g ran t i n g d efen d an t s’ m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss.4

Z L T e c h n o lo g ie s h a s w a iv e d a n yo b je c tio n to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ru lin g w ith r e s pe c tt o D i C e nz o’ s s t a t e m e nttha ti t s pr oduc t s w e r e “ the s a m e ” a s thos e of S y m a n te c . Se e I

nde p. T ow e rs of W as hi ngton v . W

as hi ngton , 350 F . 3d 925, 929 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . Ev e n i f th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s ru l i n g h a d b e e n p r o p e r l yap p e a l e d , ZL T e c h n o lo g ie s ’ c la im s a r e w ith o u t m e r it. F in a lly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b yd e n y in g le a v e to a m e n d . Se e P ar t i ngton , 56 F . 3d a t1162. A FFI R M ED .