Plaintiffs' c omplaint names " Daioleslam Seid Ha ssan" as the de fenda nt in this case . 1 De fe nd ant' s me mor and

um i n s up po rt

of his mot ion

c lari fi e s th a t de fe nd a

nt' s p ro pe r n ame is Se id Ha ssa n D a iol e sla

m. Def endant styles his motion as a motion t o dismiss , or in the alter native, for

summary 2 jud g me nt. B e c a

us e the Court

ha s c on sid e re d th e mate ri a ls t he pa rt ie s h ave a

pp e nd e d to the ir pleading s, "the motion mus t be treated as one for summary judgme nt under Rule 56." See F ed. R. Civ. P . 12(d). UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
TRITA PA RSI and NATIONAL IR AN IA N A M ER IC AN CO UN CI L, P lai nt iffs, v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 08 -7 05 (J DB ) SEID HAS SAN DAIOLES LAM, 1 Defendan t.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION Th is i s a de fa matio n c a se fi le d b y

Tr ita Pars i and the Natio na l Ira

nia n A me ri c an Co un c il (collec tively , "pla intiffs") . Plaintiffs alleg e that Seid Hassa n Daioleslam (" defe ndant" ) published numerous fa lse and de famatory statements that cha

rac terize plaintiffs as a g ents of the Irania n g overnme nt. Now bef

ore the Court is defenda

nt's motion for summar

y judgme nt. For

the 2
re a so ns dis c us se d b e low , f ur the r d isc ov e ry

is n e e de d to de ve lop c e rt a in a sp e c ts o f p la int if fs ' claim. Henc e, def

endant' s summary

judgme nt motion i s denied. BACK GR OUND Dr. Parsi, a

resident of

Washington, D.C., is the preside nt of the National I rania n Americ an Council (" NI AC") , a Washing ton, D.C.-based non- profit g roup. Compl. ¶¶ 9-10. The-2-

NI AC portray s itself as " dedicated to promoting Irania n Americ an involvement in Amer ican civic life a

nd relying on the public for f inancial a nd human re source support." I d. ¶ 10. Plaintiffs filed a thre e-c ount complaint ag ainst defe ndant, an Ar izona resident, on April 25, 2008, see king damag es and injunctive r elief f or common law de famation and portray al in a fa lse light. I d. ¶ 11. The thrust of plaintiffs' complaint is that defenda nt "ha s published false a

nd defa matory statements indicatingthat [pl aintiffs ar e] member[s] of a subve rsive and illeg al I rania n lobby colluding w ith the I slamic Republic of Iran . . . ." I d. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs highlig ht a serie s of defe ndant' s alleg edly

defa matory statements in their complaint. See id. ¶¶ 17-18, 36. F or example, plaintiffs take issue with def endant' s statement that " NIAC is one of the Irania n
re g ime ' s L ob by

arm s in the US. " I d. ¶ 3 6( B ). In a no the r s tate me nt, de fe nd ant wro te tha t " Tr ita Parsi was the r eg ime' s trusted man within the new ne twork." I d. ¶ 17(D) . Plaintiffs also append six article s authored by

the def endant, a ll of which alleg edly contain def

amatory statements. Plaintiffs argue that these statements injured their r eputations in the community , there by hamper ing N I AC' s eff

ectivene ss as an a dvocac y g roup and da

mag ing its ability

to raise f unds. I d. ¶¶ 23, 42- 43. De fe nd ant f

ile d th is s umm ary

jud g me nt m oti on

on July 8, 20 08 . H e c la ims tha

t hi s statements ar e prote cted by the Fir st Amendment bec ause pla intiffs are public fig ures a nd beca use he did not publish the statements with actua l malice. De fenda nt also argues that the First Amendme nt protects his statements bec ause the y are rea sonably

rea d as expressions of opinion, not declarations of fac ts. Finally , he ar g ues that plaintiffs' claim must fail as a matter of l aw b e c a u s e t h e c h a l l e n g e d

s t a t e m e n t s ar e n e i th e r

f a l s e n o r d e f am a t o r y.-3- STANDARD Un de r R ule 56 of the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure , s umm ary jud g me nt i s a

pp ro pr iate "if the pleading s . . . and any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judg ment as a matter of law ." F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Mater ial fac ts are those that "mig ht affe ct the outcome of the suit under the g overninglaw." Ander son v. L iberty L obby , I nc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). T he movant bea rs the initial burden of de mon str a tin g the a

bs e nc e of a g e nu ine iss ue of

mate ri a l f

a c t. C e lot e x Cor

p. v. Catr e tt, 47 7 U .S. 31 7, 32 2 ( 19 86 ). Th e pa

rt y op po sin g a

mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt, ho we ve r, " may no t r e ly
mere ly on alleg ations or denials in its own pleading ; rather , its response must -- by aff idavits or as otherw ise provided in this rule -- set out specific fac ts showing a g enuine issue f

or trial." Fe d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( e )( 2) . T he no nmo vin g pa rt y mus t do mor e tha

n s imp ly " sh owtha

t th e re is s ome
me ta ph y sic a l do ub t a s to the mate ri a l f a c ts. " Matsu sh ita

El e c . Ind us . Co ., L td. v. Z e nit

h Ra dio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Any fac tual asser

tions in t he movant' s aff

idavits will be
acc epted a s being true unless the opposingparty submits hi s own aff

idavits or other doc umentary evidenc e contr adictingthe asser tion. Neal v. Ke lly , 963 F.2d 453, 456 ( D.C. Cir. 1992).

AN AL YSI S Def amation ca ses that, like this one, involve public figures f all at the interse ction of common law and the First Amendme nt. The district court, sitting in diver sity , must apply the
s t at e c o m m o nl aw o f d ef

am at i o nt o t h e f

ac t s b ef o re i t . T h o s e l aw s s ee k

t o p ro t ec tth e i n d i v i d

u al 's interest in his reputation. Waldbaum v. Fa irchild Publ'ns, Inc., 627 F .2d 1287, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 19 80 ) ( " F ro m it s e arl ie st d ay s, the law o f d e fa matio n ma de the ind ivi du a l' s in te re st i n h is
re putatio n s up re me ." ). B ut at th e same tim e , th e Court mus t de te rm ine wh e the r o the rw ise-4-

defa matory speec h is protected by

the Fir st Amendment. The F irst Amendment re flec ts the

" natio na l c omm itm e nt t o th e pr inc ipl e that de bate on pu bli c iss ue s sh ou ld b e un inh ibi te d, ro bu st,
and wi de -o pe n . . . ." Ne w Y or k T ime s Co . v . Su lli va

n, 37 6 U .S. 25 4, 27 0 ( 19 64 ). Th e Sup re me Court ha s r e c on c ile d th e se int e re sts by c on c lud ingthat th e F ir st A me ndme nt r e qu ir e s so me "br eathingspace " when public figures a re involved. I d. at 272; see a lso Gertz v. Robert Welch, I nc ., 41 8 U .S. 32 3, 34 2 ( 19 74 ) ( e xten din g Ne w Y or k T ime s f ro m pu bli c of fi c ia ls t o p ub lic fi g ur e s) . T o c re a te that sp a c e , th e Sup re me Court ha s d e c re e d th a t a

pu bli c fi gur e c an o nly pr e va il i n a

de fa matio n c a se up on

a sh ow ing , b y

c le ar a nd c on vin c inge vid e nc e , th a t an o the rw ise de fa mator y state me nt w a s ma de wi th " a c tua l ma lic e " -- that is , w ith" kn ow le dg e tha t it wa s f a lse or with rec kless disreg ard of whether it was false or not." Masson v. NewYork, 501 U.S. 496, 509 (1991). He re , t h e C o u rt , s i t t i n g i nd i v er s i ty i nth e D i s tri ct o f C o l u mb i a, ap p l i es th e D i s tri ct 's defa mation law.

To state a c ause of

action for

defa mation, a plaintiff must alleg e four elements: (1) that the def endant made a fa lse and de famatory statement conce rning the plaintiff; (2) that the defe ndant published the statement wi tho ut p ri vil e g e to a

thi rd pa rt y ; ( 3) tha t th e de fe nd ant' s f

a ult in publishing the stateme nt amounted to at least ne g lige nce; a nd (4) e ither that the statement wa s actionable as a matter of law irrespe ctive of spe cial harm or that its publ ication ca used the plaintiff spe cial har m. Blodg ett v. University

Club, 930 A.2d 210, 222 (D.C. 2007) (quoting Opar aug o v. Watts, 884 A.2d 63, 76 (D.C.2005)) . Howeve r, def endant a rgues that plaintiffs ar e public figures. I f the Court ag ree s -- a

nd, as discussed be low, it does -- then the First Amendme nt require s a g reater showing of fa

ult than is normally

require d by

the third eleme nt list ed above . Mere neg lige nce wi ll n ot s uf

fi c e . Ins te a d, pla int if

fs mus t de mon str a te tha

t de fe nd ant p ub lis he d th e state me nt w ith-5-

"a ctual malice ." Ma sson, 501 U.S. at 509; Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342. I. P ubl ic F igure

" Pub lic fi g ur e s" fa ll i nto on e of tw o c a te g or ie s. " Ge ne ra l pu bli c fi g ur e s" are ho us e ho ld
names a nd well-known c elebr ities. See Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1294. Neither D r. Parsi nor the NI AC has the kind of " g ener al fame or notoriety " to be labeled a g ener al public figure. See id. The c loser question in this case is whe ther plaintiffs qua lify for the se cond categ ory

of " limit ed public fig ures." Def

endant, of course , argues that they

do. See Memora

ndum in Support of Def endant' s Motion ("De f. Mem." ) at 5-7. And plaintiffs appe ar to take no issue with the application of that label to them -- their opposition m emora

ndum makes no ef

fort to re but defe ndant' s "public f

igur e" argument. Ba sed on the fa cts now in the re cord, the Court ag ree s that pla int if fs are lim ite d p ub lic fi g ur e s. A thr e e -p art

inq uir y g uid e s c ourt s in

de te rm ini ngwh e the r a

pla int if f i s a lim ite d p ub lic fig ure. The court should first identify a " public controve rsy ." Waldbaum, 627 F .2d at 1297-98. Next, the court should examine the plaintiffs' role in that controve rsy . I d. at 1297. Fina lly , the
co u rt s h o u l d

d et erm i n e w h et h er

t h e "a l l ege d

d ef am at i o n[ wa s ] germ an e t o th e p l ai n t i ff 's participation in the controversy ." I d. at 1298. Court s mu st c are fu lly

ide nti fy the pu bli c c on tr ov e rs y . " [A] pu bli c c on tr ov e rs y

is a dispute that in fact ha s rec eived public attention because its ramifications will be fe lt by persons who are n otdi rectpart ici pan ts ." I d. at 1 29 6. Buta "general con cern or i nt eres t w il l n otsu ffi ce." I d. at 1297. Nor is new sworthiness alone e noug h, beca use cour ts must ensure that they

do not become "c ensors of ' what information is relevant to self- g overnme nt.'" I d. (quoting Ger tz, 418 U.S. at 346). He re, how ever , a public contr oversy is readily identified. The r elationship betwee nThe " public fig ure" analy sis is not limit ed to natura l persons. See O AO Alfa Ba nk, 387 3 F. Supp. 2d at 47-48. The ref ore, the actua l malice standa rd may apply to both NI AC and Mr. Pars i. -6- the United States and I

ran ha s been de bated at leng th and for year s. I ndeed, the controve rsy was a sig nificant a

rea of conte ntion between the n-Senator O bama a nd Senator McCa in in the 2008 presidential e lection ca

mpaig n. The c ontroversy is specific e noug h that it is not a g ener al
c on c e rn , b ut i t is no t so sp e c if ic a s to a ff

e c t on ly the dir e c t pa

rt ic ipa nts . Ind e e d, the c on tr ov e rs y is simi lar in scope to those found ade quate in other case s. See, e.g ., Tavoular eas v. Piro, 817 F.2d 762, 773 ( D.C. Cir. 1987) (identifying the rele vant public controve rsy as " whether

the manag ement and struc ture of the United States' private oil industry was in nee d of alter ation or
re fo rm . . . [ba se d o n] th e oil sh or ta g e s o f t he 19 70 ' s" ); OA O A lf

a B ank v. Ctr . f or Pub lic I nteg rity , 387 F. Supp. 2d 20, 43 (D.D .C. 2005) (identifying the rele vant public controve rsy as

" [t]he ri se of

the oli g arc hs and

the de c lin e of

the Rus sia

n e c on omy

int o . . . a ' c ri min a l- sy

nd ic a lis t state' ")
. Plaintiffs' r ole in the public controve rsy can be deter

mined by ref ere nce to the N I AC website, portions of whic h are attache d as exhibit s to defenda nt's br ief. NIAC "a dvance s the interests of the I

rania n Americ an Community

on civic, cultura l and political issues." See De f. 3 Mem. Ex. 1. The website also lists Dr. Parsi' s involvement in the controver sy . He ha s authored a book on the subjec t of U.S.-Iran r elations, as we ll as articles that have be en published in the Fin anci al T im es, J ane's I nt ell igenc e R evi ew, andot her r epu tab le p ub li cat io ns . I d. Ex . 3 . He is "a fre quent commentator

on US-Irania

n relations and Middle Eastern a ffa irs, and has a ppear ed on BB C W orld New s, PBS NewsHour with J im L ehre r, CNN, Al Jaz eer a, C-Span, NPR, ABC, a nd MSNBC." I d. Henc e, plaintiffs have cle arly assumed " specia l prominence " in this controve rsy .-7-

Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297. Finally , the alleg ed def

amation was " g erma

ne" to plaintiffs' participation in the controve rsy . I d. at 1298. The state ments complained of c oncer n plaintiffs' relationship wit h the g overnme nt of Iran. See Compl. ¶¶ 17-18. B eca use the re lationship between the United States and Iran is the r eleva

nt public controver sy , the statements ar e g erma ne to plaintiffs' participation in that controver sy . The Court, then, is satisfied that plaintiffs qua lify as limited public figur es, there by trig g eringthe ac tual malice standa rd. In short, defe ndant' s unchalleng ed asse rtion that plaintiffs
ar e p u b l i c f i g u r e s i s f u l l y s u p p o rt e d b y th e C o ur

t ' s i n d e p e n d e n ti n qu i r

y. II. Actual Malice Havingdeter

mined that plaintiffs are limit ed public figures, the ne x t question is whether pla int if fs are inc a

pa ble of pr ov inga c tua l ma lic e -- by c le ar a nd c on vin c inge vid e nc e -- a s a matter of la

w. " The standa

rd of a ctual malice is a daunting one." McF arla ne v. Esquire Mag azine, 74 F.3d 1296, 1308 ( D.C. Cir. 1996). Plaintiffs must s how that " the def endant in fa ct
e nte rt a ine d s e ri ou s d ou

bts a s to the tr

uth of his pu bli c a tio n. " St. Am ant v . T ho mps on , 3 90 U. S. 727, 731 (1968). Purposef ul avoidance of truth ca

n constitute actua l malice, see Har te-Ha nks Com mc ' ns v. Conna

ug hto n, 49 1 U .S. 65 7, 69 2 ( 19 89 ), but f a ilure to i nv e sti g a te c ann ot, se e St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 731. To make matters eve n more diff icult for plaintiffs, the " clea r and convincingevidenc e" require ment is "sig nificantly more one rous than the usua l preponde ranc e of the evidenc e standa

rd." Tavoular eas, 817 F .2d at 776. Unsurpr isingly , "[f]ew public figures have be en able clea

rly and convinc ingly

to prove that the sc urrilous things sa id about them wer e published by

someone with ' serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publ ication.' " Mc Fa rlane v.Citi ng Br own v. Courier H era ld Publ'gCo., 700 F. Supp. 534 (S.D. Ga. 1988) ; Nelson 4 v. Associated Pre ss, I nc., 667 F . Supp. 1468 (S.D. Fla. 1987); How e v. De troit Fre e Press, Inc., 555 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). -8- Sheridan Square Press, Inc., 91 F .3d 1501, 1515 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quotingSt. Amant, 390 U.S. at 731). Whether a de fenda nt published a statement with ac tual malice is normally a question of fac t for the jury . L iberty

L obby , I nc. v. Ree s, 852 F.2d 595, 598 (D .C. Cir. 1988). A defe ndant cannot " automatically

insure a f avora ble ver dict by

testifying that he published with a belief that the statements we re true ." St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 732. B ut if the plaintiff has not made a showing that a def

endant c ould have published a defa matory statement with ac tual malice, then the def endant may

preva il as a matter of

law. Ree s, 852 F.2d at 598. Def endant a rgues that he c ould not have made the cha lleng ed stateme nts with actual
ma lic e be c a

us e of the so -c a lle d " wi re se rv ic e s d e fe ns e ." Al tho ug h th is c ir c uit ha s n ot s qu are ly
re c og nize d th is d e fe ns e , d e fe nd ant u rg e s th e Court

to a do pt i t he re and

to f ind tha t he fa ith fu lly quoted or re -published ar ticles in authoringthe alleg edly defa matory statements. Def

. Mem. at 19-27. Unde r def

endant' s proposed de fense , if " an alleg edly defa matory statement wa s taken without substantial chang e fr om a re putable new s-g ather ing a g ency ," the n the def endant c annot be held liable f

or def amation unless he " actua lly knew that the w ire ser

vice r eport wa s false or there is something unusual in the wire service repor t that should have put the publisher on notice that the re port was pr obably false." I d. at 24. 4 Even if the Court we re to re cog nize defenda nt's pr oposed " wire se rvice s defe nse," two p ro b l em s wo u l d

d ef ea ti t s ap p l i ca t i o nh er e. As a l ega l m at t er , th e s ec o n d p ro n g o f d ef

en d an t 's test beg s the question of whe ther he acte d with actual malice . I f def endant did have actua lDe fe nd ant' s a ff ida vit pr ov ide s b ri e f d e sc ri pti on s o f s ome of the se art ic le s. Se e Af

fi davit 5 of Seid Hassa

n Daioleslam ¶¶

6-7. B ut these brief

descr iptions are not ade quate substitutes for ve rb a timtr ans latio ns of

tho se art ic le s. -9- knowledg e of f

alsity , then his proposed wire service s defe nse fa ils and he has a cted with ac tual malice. That is because the sec ond prongof def endant' s proposed test is basica lly the same a s the test for a ctual malice . Compare De f. Mem. at 24 ( defe ndant not liable unless he " actua lly knew that the wire service repor t was fa lse or ther e is something unusua l in the wire ser vice r eport that should have put the publisher on notice that the re port was pr obably false" ), with Sheridan Square Pre ss, 91 F.3d at 1508 ( "Apublisher ac ts with 'a ctual malice ' if it either knows that what it i s a bo ut t o p ub lis h is fa lse or it p ub lis he s th e inf

or matio n w ith' re c kle ss d isr e g ard ' fo r i ts t ruth or fa lsity .")
. Def endant' s argument fails as a fac tual matter a s well. Def endant points to ten source s he cited in one of

his alleg edly

defa matory article s to demonstrate that the sour ces w ere quoted without substantial chang e. De f. Mem. at 25. B ut seven of those ten ar ticles are in Arabic , provided without translation, and henc e ar e unhelpf ul. Wi thout knowing wha t they say , the 5 Court c ann ot d e te rm ine if

" de fe nd ant i n f

a c t e nte rt a ine d s e ri ou s d ou bts a s to the tr

uth of his publication." St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 731. None of the re maining thr ee e x hibits -- the "f reque ntly asked que stions" website pa g e fr om an org anization that Dr. Parsi previously direc ted (Ex. 13), a pape r co- authore d by Dr. Parsi e ntitled "Iran- Americ ans: The br idge betwee n two
natio ns " (E x. 14 ), and

a pa g e fr om t

he NIAC we bs ite de sc ri bin g the or g anizatio n' s e ff or ts t o involve I rania

n-Amer ican y

ouths in poli tics (Ex. 16) -- desc ribe a n officia l relationship betwee n pla int if fs and the I ra nia n g ov e rnme nt. Th e re fo re , if any of the c ite d a

rt ic le s d o r e po rt

on fa c ts that w ou ld e sta

bli shan a g e nc y

re latio ns hip be tw e e n p la int if fs and the Ira nia n g ov e rnme nt, the n itTh e Court of fe rs no op ini on

on wh e the r d e fe nd ant i n f

a c t mi sc ha

ra c te ri zed pla int if fs ' 6 stance on human rig hts, and instead finds only that based on the curr ent re cord, de fenda nt may h av e m i s ch ar ac t er i z edp l ai n t i ff s ' s t an ce . Of

co urs e, i f d i s co v ery

re v ea l s th at d ef

en d an t 's char acte rization was acc urate , then this statement is not actionable. The pa rties should bear

in mind that the Court's re solution of this motion does not mean 7 that a trial is nec essar

y to determine whether

defe ndant published his statements with actual malice. Disc overy

may provide a clea r answe r. Eac h party

will have an oppor

tunity to file a summary judgme nt motion, based on a complete rec ord, explaining why the ac tual malice -10- mus t be tho se art ic le s th a t de fe nd ant h a s p ro vid e d in Ar a bic wi tho ut t

ra ns latio n. He nc e , at th is stag e the Court ca

nnot conclude that defe ndant dre w from other news sourc es " without
su bs tanti a l c ha

ng e " in a uth or ingthe of

fe nd ingsta

te me nts . Plaintiffs, on the other hand, ha ve pointed out that the re cord c ould support a findingof actua l malice. See Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defe ndant' s Motion ("Pls.' O pp.") at 7. F or e xamp le , in

an a rt ic le e nti tle d " Aya tol lah' s L ob by in Wa sh ing ton

Of fe ri ngHuman Ri g hts as a N eg otiating Item," de fenda nt wrote that whe n "Ahmadinejad [the preside nt of Iran] held the Ho loc a us t c on fe re nc e and

de c lare d th a t ' I sr a e l sh ou ld b e wi pe d o ff the ma p, ' Tr ita Pars i and his cohorts did not only

not condemn this anti-Irania n and anti-huma

nity act, but launc hed a campa ign . . . to blame the fa ult on the 'ne ocon' media . . . ." See id. Ex. A. But, as plaintiffs po int out, D r. Pars i ha s f

re qu e ntl y c ri tic ize d th e Ira

nia n g ov e rnme nt' s st anc e on human r ig hts in g ener al and on the H olocaust in particula r. See A ffidavit of Tr ita Parsi ¶ 15. At this stag e of the p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e C o u rtc an n o td e t e r m i n e th e s o ur c e o f

, mu c hl e s s r e s o l v e , th i s d i s c r e p an c y. A 6 failure to investigate ade quately could not alone amount to actual malice, se e St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 731, but purposeful avoidance of the truth could, se e Ha rte-H anks, 491 U.S. at 692. Discover y is neede d, then, to deter

mine what def

endant kne w at the time he ma de the c ontested state me nts . 7standard is (or is not) satisfied by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. -11- III . F als e and D e fam at or y St at e m e nt A. Fa lseSta te me nts "[T]ruth is a complete def ense to de famation." Moldea v. New Y ork Times Co., 15 F.3d 1137, 1142 (D.C. Cir. 1994). A stateme nt that is not completely err or-f ree can still be " true" for purposes of de famation law. See L iberty L obby , Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., 838 F .2d 1287, 1296 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (holdingthat a " substantially true" statement does not g ive rise to a de famation
a c tio n) ; se e a lso Re state me nt ( Se c on d) of To rt s § 58 1A , c omm e nt f (1 97 7) (" I t is no t ne c e ssa ry to establish the literal truth of the prec ise statement made . Slight inacc urac ies of expression are immaterial provided that the defa matory char g e is true in substance .") . The D.C. Circuit has employ ed a r oug h test to determine whe ther a defe ndant' s defe nse of truth will dispatch a pla int if f' s d e fa matio n s uit : is the " sti ngof the c ha rg e " " su bs tanti a lly

tr ue " ? Se e Do w Jon e s & Co. , 8 38 F .2 d at 12 96 ; Mo lde a , 1 5 F .3 d at 11 50 . I f s o, the n a de fa matio n s uit

mus t f a il. He re , d e fe nd ant a

rgue s th a t hi s a lle g e dly

de fa mator y state me nts are ind e e d s ub sta nti a lly true. He claims that plaintiffs ar e " lobbyists" under the plain meaningof the ter m. Def. Me m. at 9-10. De fenda

nt also argues that plaintiffs' g oals alig n with the Irania n g overnme nt's g oals, and that some Irania

n g overnme nt-owned publications and I rania n officia ls have sug g ested support of plaintiffs. I d. at 10-12. F inally , defe ndant points out that Dr. Parsi previously was the pr esident of an or g anization known as Irania ns for International Cooperation (" I I C"), which " identified i t s el f a s 'an I ra n i an l o b b y ' an d i n d i ca t edth at i t s 'm ai no b j ec t i v e [ wa s ] t o s af

egu ar d Ira nan d I ra n 's interests.' " I d. at 12 (bra ckets a nd emphasis in orig inal) (quotingDef . Mem. Ex. 13). But de fenda

nt parses his stateme nts too finely . The " sting of the char g e" is not, as-12-

de fe nd ant w ou ld h ave it, that pl a int if fs are lob byist s. No r d oe s th e a sse rt ion tha t pl a int if fs ' g oa ls alig n with the I rania

n g overnme nt's g oals ca

rry rea l bite. Truthful or not, those statements do not form the c ore of

plaintiffs' defa

mation claim. Rather, the stingof the c harg e is that plaintiffs ar e ag ents of the Irania

n g overnme nt. Plainti ffs take issue with statements like: "Of ficially founded in 2002, NI AC is one of the Irania n reg ime' s L obby

arms in the US." Compl. ¶ 36(B) . In another article , defe ndant wrote : "Tr ita Parsi was the r eg ime' s trusted man within the new ne twork." I d. ¶ 17(D). To be sure , defe ndant points to Dr. Parsi' s tenure a s president of the I I C as proof that he was, in fa ct, the hea d of a se lf-desc ribed " Irania n lobby ." B ut examination of the I I C website, see Def . Mem. Ex. 13, reveals that the " I rania n lobby " la

bel is not as straig htforwa rd as de fenda

nt
wo uld have it. Th e Court

ha s r e vie we d E xhibi t 13 -- the so le pa g e fr om t he I I C w e bs ite that is now par t of the re cord in this case -- a nd cannot f

ind a sing le mention of support by the Irania

n g ov e rnme nt. Un le ss " a

tr ia l c ourt

c an f ind a s a matte r o f l aw that a

c ha lle ng e d p ub lic a tio n is substantially

true . . . it is the jury ' s province to de termine whe ther the publication was sufficie ntly

false so a s to have de fame d the plaintiff." Moldea, 15 F .3d at 1150. B ased on the
rec ord now be fore the Court, rea sonable juror s could diffe r in their conc lusions as to whether d ef en d an t 's s t at em en t s we re s u b s t an t i al l y

tru e. He n ce , d ef

en d an t 's d ef

en s e o f t ru th , at th i s s t age of the pr oc e e din g s, mus t f

a il. B. De fam ato ry Sta te me nts Def endant a lso contends that his statements wer e not def amatory . See De f. Mem. at 13- 1 5
. C o u rt s mu s td et erm i n e w h et h er a s t at em en ti s "cap ab l e o f c o n v ey i n g a d ef am at o ry m ea n i n g"
as a matter of law . S. Air Transp. v. Am. B road. Cos., Inc., 877 F .2d 1010, 1013-14 (D.C. Cir.-13-

1 9 8 9 )
. F o r

t h i s i n qu i r

y , t h e C o u rt , s i t t i n g i nd i v e r s i ty , a p p l i e s th e D i s tr i c t ' s d e f

am a t i o nl aw . " ' It is only when the c ourt ca

n say that the publication is not reasona bly capa ble of a ny defa matory meaningand ca

nnot be re asonably

understood in any

defa matory sense that it ca

n rule a s a matter of law, that it

wa s n ot l ibe lou s. ' " Whit e v. F rate rn a l O rd e r o f P oli c e , 9 09 F .2 d 5 12 , 5 18 (D .C. Cir. 1990) (quoting L evy

v. Am. Mutual I ns. Co., 196 A.2d 475, 476 (D.C. 1964)). A statement can be understood in a de famatory sense if it " tends to lower plaintiff in the e stimation of a
s u b s t an t i al , re s p ec t ab l e gr o u p , t h o u ghth ey

ar e am i n o ri ty

o f t h e t o t al co m mun i ty

o r p l ai n t i ff

's associate s." A fro- Americ an Publ'gCo. v. J aff e, 366 F .2d 649, 664 n.10 (D.C. Cir. 1966). The Court conc ludes that defe ndant' s statements are capa ble of c onveying a

defa matory
me anin g . Pl a int if

fs po int out th a t th e Ira

nia n- Am e ri c an c omm

un ity " ov e rwhe lmi ng ly disapproves of

the g overnme nt of the I slamic Republic of Iran." Parsi Aff. ¶ 8; see a lso id. ¶¶ 9- 14 (desc ribing how def

endant' s statements have alleg edly damag ed plaintiffs' reputation). I f, based on de fenda

nt's state ments, the Irania n-Amer ican c ommunity

believes that plaintiffs are employ ed by

the Irania

n g overnme nt, then defe ndant' s statements may have " lower[ed] plaintiff[s] in the estimation of a substantial, re specta ble g roup." See Af

ro-Ame rica

n Publ'gCo., 366 F.2d at 664 n.10. Hence , the Court cannot f ind that defe ndant' s statements are incapa ble of convey ing a defa matory meaningas a matter of law
. IV. F act- Opin ion Distin ction Def endant a lso chara cter izes his s tatements as opinions, not fac ts. See Def . Mem. at 15- 19. The F irst Amendment protec ts statements of opinions -- " [h] oweve r per nicious an opinion may seem, we depend f

or its corre ction not on the conscie nce of judge s and juries but on the competition of other idea s." G ertz, 418 U.S. at 340. To assist courts in distinguishing be tween-14-

fac ts and opinions, this circ uit has set out a four- fac tor test: (1) the c ommon usag e or me aningof the spec ific languag e used in the state ment; (2) the state ment' s verifia bility ; (3) the f

ull context of the state me nt; and

(4 ) t he br oa de r c on te xt in w hic h th e state me nt a pp e ars . Se e Ol lma

n v . E va ns , 750 F.2d 970, 979 ( D.C. Cir. 1984). The thrust of plaintiffs' claim addr esses stateme nts of fac t, not statements of opinion. Def endant insists that certa in words in his challeng ed stateme nts sugg est the opposite conc lusion. Words like "unwa

ry " a nd "smoke scre en," defe ndant maintains, demonstrate that he wa s
e xpre ssi nghis po int

of vie w a nd no thi nge lse . B ut t

he fu ll c onte xt of

the c ha lle ng e d s tate me nts , not isolated words, dete rmines whethe r statements a re one s of fa ct or opinion. See id. And, a s discussed above , the " sting of the char g e" is that plaintiffs are ag ents of the Irania n g overnme nt. This is a statement of fa ct. I t can be verifie d -- plaintiffs e ither ar e or a re not a g ents of the I ra nia n g ov e rnme nt. Se e id. Mo re ov e r, de fe nd ant' s st a te me nts are no t in tang ibl e or imp re c ise words with widely

diverg ent def

initions . See id. at 980-81 ( explaining that political terms like "f ascist" lack a

"c orre ct" definition and that terms like " sloppy and irre sponsible" a

re too imp re c ise to s up po rt

a de fa matio n a c tio n) . T ake , f

or e xamp le , d e fe nd ant' s st a te me nt t hat " Tr ita Parsi was the r eg ime' s trusted man within the new ne twork." Compl. ¶ 17(D). Eve n shorn of adjec tives, the statement conta ins a statement of f act: that Dr . Parsi is an ag ent of the I rania n go v ern m en t . T h er ef

o re , aga i nb as edo nth e c urr en tre co rd , th e C o urt re j ec t s d ef en d an t 's
argume nt t

hat hi s c ha lle ng e d s tate me nts are op ini on s, no t f a c ts, wa rr anti ngdis mis sa l of

pla int if fs ' defa mation action. V. P ar ag r aph 1 8( C) of C om pla int Finally , defe ndant re quests that the Court strike par ag raph 18( C) from the c omplaint.-15-

Parag raph 18 lists a number of alleg edly defa matory statements made by

defe ndant, including the following statement set out at par ag raph 18( C) (bra ckets in orig inal):

Ob vio us ly , th e Swi ss a

mba ssa do r [Pa

rs i] di d n ot i nte nd

to p ut at r isk su c h a his tor ic a l e ve nt b y

tur nin g to B ob Ne y ' s g ro up . H e wa s su re ly instructed by

his I rania n contac ts to do so. De fe nd ant m a de that st a te me nt i n a n a rt ic le e nti tle d " Ira

n' s 2 00 3 G ra

nd B arg a in O ff

e r: Se c re ts, L ies, and Manipulation." See Compl. Ex . 2. But, a s defe ndant points out, his article neve r ref err ed to Dr. Par si as the Swiss ambassador, but instead c lear ly identifies Tom Guldimann as the Swi ss a

mba ssa do r. Se e De f. Me m. a t 28 -2 9. To be sure , p la int if fs may have a c c ide nta lly misplaced the br acke ted portion or made some other ty pog raphic al er

ror. Ye t plaintiffs are silent on defe ndant' s reque st that the Court strike para g raph 18( C). Be cause , as written, pa ragraph 18(C) misconstrues de fenda nt's a ctual stateme nt, the Court will st rike pa ragraph 18( C) from the
c omp la int
. CO NC LU SION For these re asons, def

endant' s summary

judgme nt motion i s denied. A se parate orde r has b e e ni s s u e d

t o d ay. SO ORDERED.
/ s / J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge Dated: F ebrua

ry 4, 2009