United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 23-7167 September Term, 2023

1:18-cv-00800-TJK

Filed On: August 8, 2024

Jeffrey Thomas, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

Crystal Moreland,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Wilkins, Katsas, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed on November 6,

2023, be affirmed. Appellant fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its

discretion when it denied appellant’s motion for additional discovery under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 56(d). See Cruz v. McAleenan, 931 F.3d 1186, 1191 (D.C. Cir.

2019) (abuse of discretion standard). The district court acted within its discretion when

it determined that appellant’s motion, filed nearly two years after the discovery period

closed, was untimely. See United States ex rel. Folliard v. Gov’t Acquisitions, Inc., 764

F.3d 19, 26 & n.5 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (noting that the district court may consider a party’s

“diligence” in reviewing a Rule 56(d) motion). The district court also did not abuse its

discretion in holding, following a detailed analysis, that appellant had otherwise failed to

demonstrate that relief under Rule 56(d) was appropriate. See Convertino v. U.S. Dep’t

of Justice, 684 F.3d 93, 99-100 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (describing the factors to be

considered in reviewing a Rule 56(d) motion).

The district court also correctly granted summary judgment in favor of appellee

as to appellant’s defamation claim. Appellant fails to address the district court’s

decision regarding two of the fourteen allegedly defamatory statements, and therefore

forfeits any challenge to the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to these two

statements. See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 23-7167 September Term, 2023

(D.C. Cir. 2004). For the remaining twelve, the district court correctly concluded that,

under District of Columbia law, the statements were protected by the common interest

privilege. See Mastro v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 447 F.3d 843, 858 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

Appellant fails to demonstrate that the district court erred in determining that appellant

had not satisfied his “difficult burden of showing malice” sufficient to overcome the

common interest privilege. Id. at 859; see also Novecon Ltd. v. Bulgarian-Am. Enter.

Fund, 190 F.3d 556, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (explaining that under District of Columbia

law, if the “language” and “circumstances” surrounding the publication of the allegedly

defamatory statements “are as consistent with the nonexistence of malice as with its

existence, there is no issue for the jury” (quotation omitted)). 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2