# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-7167 September Term, 2023 1: 18-c v -008 00-TJK Filed O n: August 8, 2 024 Jef f rey T hom as, Jr., App ellant
v . Crystal Morela nd,

App ellee ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: W ilkins, Ka tsas, and Garcia, Circuit Jud ges J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the briefs f iled b y the pa rties. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). It is ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s o rder f iled o n Novem ber 6 , 202 3, b e a f

f irmed . A ppe llant fails to dem onst rate tha t th e d istrict court a buse d its discretion w hen it de nied ap pellan t’s m otion for ad dition al disco v eryun der Fe dera l Rule of Civ il Proced ure 5 6(d). S ee Cruzv. McAleena n, 9 31 F.3d 11 86, 11 91 (D.C. Cir. 201 9) (abu se o f

discretio n sta nda rd). T he district cou rt acte d within its discret ion when it de term ined tha t ap pellan t’s m otion , f iled n early two years after th e d iscovery pe riod closed , was untim ely. See United Sta tes e x rel. Folliard v . Go v ’t Acquisitions, Inc. , 76 4 F.3d 19 , 26 & n .5 (D.C. Cir. 20 14) (no ting tha t th e d istrict court m ay conside r a p arty’ s “dilig ence ” in review ing a Rule 56(d ) mo tion). T he district cou rt also did n ot a buse its discretion in h olding, followi ng a d eta iled a nalysis, thatap pellan t ha d o the rw ise failed to dem onst rate tha t relief

un der Ru le 56 (d) was a ppro priate . S ee Convertino v. U.S. De p’t of Justice , 68 4 F.3 d 9 3, 9 9-10 0 (D.C. Cir. 20 12) (de scribing the facto rs to b e consid ered in review ing a Rule 56(d ) mo tion). T he district cou rt also correctly g rante d su mm aryjudgm entin favor of ap pellee as to ap pellan t’s de fam ation claim . A ppe llant fails to add ress th e d istrict court’s decision regarding two o f the fourte en allegedly defam ato ry stat em ent s, an d th erefore forfeits a ny challenge t o th e d istrict court’s grant of sum ma ry

judgm entas t o th ese two state me nts. Se e Unite d S tate s ex rel. T otte n v. Bom bard ier Corp., 380 F.3d 48 8, 4 97

# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-7167 September Term, 2023 (D.C. Cir. 2004 ). For th e rem aining twelve, t he district cou rt correctly conclud ed tha t, und er District of

Colum bia la w , th e sta tem ent s w ere p rotect ed by the co mm on intere st priv ilege. Se e Mast ro v. Poto ma c Elec. Po wer Co., 44 7 F.3 d 8 43, 85 8 (D.C. Cir. 20 06). App ellantfails to dem onst rate tha t th e d istrict court e rred in d ete rmining th at a ppe llant had no t sat isf ied h is “dif f icult bu rden of

sho w ing ma lice” suf

f icient t o o v ercom e th e com mo n int erest priv ilege. Id . at85 9; se e a lso Novecon Ltd . v. Bulgarian-Am . En ter. Fund , 19 0 F.3 d 5 56, 56 7 (D.C. Cir. 19 99) (explaining th at u nde r District of Colum bia law , if the “language” an d “circum stan ces” surrou ndin g the p ublicat ion o f the allegedly defam ato ry

stat em ent s “are a s con sistentw ith th e n one x istence of m alice a s w ith its existence, the re is no issue for th e jury” ( quotat ion o mitt ed)). Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2