Opinion ID: 1910345
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Barker's Defamation Claims

Text: Barker first contends that Superior Court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to her defamation claims against Huang. There are two parts to this claim, which must be examined separately. First, Barker argues that the court's grant of summary judgment of her claim that Huang made defamatory statements during the course of the Rochen litigation was in error because the court failed to give her an opportunity through discovery to establish facts in support of the applicability of a sham litigation exception to Huang's defense of absolute privilege. Second, Barker argues that the court's grant of summary judgment of her claim that Huang made defamatory statements wholly outside the judicial context was in error because Huang had failed to come forward with any denial of having made such statements. Where Superior Court grants summary judgment, [t]he scope of our review is ... unqualified. Merrill v. Crothall-American, Del.Supr., 606 A.2d 96 (1992).
Superior Court found that the defense of absolute privilege was plainly applicable to the defamatory statements allegedly made by Huang in the course of the Rochen litigation, and that Barker had failed to present an exceedingly strong factual showing [necessary] in order to defeat the operation of the privilege. Barker argues that the court erred in placing upon her, as the non-moving party, a burden of coming forward with evidence in support of the applicability of the sham litigation exception when Huang, the moving party, had failed to come forward with any denial. Barker argues in the alternative that even if a burden of production had correctly shifted to her, that burden should have been excused by her lack of opportunity to undertake discovery. See Mann v. Oppenheimer & Co., Del.Supr., 517 A.2d 1056 (1986). Huang responds that no sham litigation exception to the absolute privilege exists under the law of Delaware; he argues, in the alternative, that if such an exception does exist, Barker failed to carry the appropriately heavy burden of coming forward with specific facts to establish a material question of fact as to whether Huang's Rochen counterclaim was a sham.