Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/403623323/Holland-Knight-Letter-for-Pre-Motion-Conf-for-Honig-v-Buhl-1-20-17
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:19:04+00:00

Document:
Teri Buhl's attorneys demanded a stay of discovery while a federal judge in New York ruled on her motion to dismiss. Attorney Charles Harder was trying to get early discovery for his client Barry C. Hoing who was reported to be under SEC investigation. Harder ended up dropping the litigation against Buhl in NY federal court after a hear where a judge challenged Harder on why a lot of the sentences he said were defamatory were not libelous.
We represent Defendant Teri Buhl in the above-referenced matter. Pursuant to Rule 4.A.
scheduling conference scheduled for January 26, 2017.
“granting preliminary and permanent injunctive relief”, are flatly unconstitutional.
conduct actionable under that tort.
interference with prospective economic advantage.
II. The Statements Identified by Plaintiff Are Not Defamatory.
report of an official, judicial, or legislative proceeding cannot be the basis for a defamation action.
investigation has begun, was protected as a report of an official proceeding).
Commission (“SEC”) investigation and that 90% of the regulator’s questions pertained to Mr.
therefore, substantially accurate and privileged under New York’s law.
Mr. Honig’s role in investment scheme); Greenburg v. Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd., Case No.
B. The Allegedly Defamatory Statements Are Protected Opinion.
N.Y.2d 369, 366 N.E.2d 1299 (1977), following Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
In fact, the New York State Constitution affords greater protection of opinion than federal law.
See Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235, 567 N.E.2d 1270 (1991).
based on allegations that plaintiff misstated financial figures and valuations).
reporting. Therefore, they are not actionable as a matter of law.
C. The Allegedly Defamatory Statements Are Not Actionable As a Matter of Law.
of right-thinking persons.” Therefore, they are not actionable as a matter of law.
Fails as a Matter of Law.
claim for tortious interference with economic advantage. See, e.g. Huggins v. Povitch, 24 Med. L.
prospective economic advantage must be dismissed.
are addressed.” November v. Time, Inc., 13 N.Y.2d 175, 244 N.Y.S.2d 309, 194 N.E.2d 126, 128 (1963).
IV. A Stay of Discovery is Warranted.
was strictly one of law and did not involve issues relating to the “sufficiency” of the allegations).
prejudiced if discovery in this matter is stayed.
judicial process to chill Ms. Buhl’s speech about matters of public concern.
Thank you for the Court’s consideration of the above.
contained in New York Civil Rights Law § 79-h.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 79