Opinion ID: 774843
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Every expert.

Text: 75 Due to the exclusion of the scientific evidence, the district court held that Metabolife did not present a prima facie case proving the safety of Metabolife 356 when used as directed. 72 F. Supp. at 1172. The district court also ruled in the alternative that Metabolife cannot proceed on the alleged defamatory implication that there is some consensus in the scientific community as to its product's unsafe nature becauseWornick's `every expert' statement is not capable of supporting that implication. Id. at 1173. 76 In order to prevail on the alleged implication of scientific consensus as to Metabolife 356's unsafety, Metabolife must show that the words . . . uttered were reasonably capable of sustaining that meaning and that a jury could reasonably find by clear and convincing evidence that[the defendants] `intended to convey the defamatory impression.'  18 Dodd v. Am. Broad. Co., 145 F.3d 1053, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Newton v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc. , 930 F.2d 662, 681 (9th Cir. 1990)). 77 The statement Every expert we asked said Metabolife [356] is not safe because of its main ingredient, ma huang is at least susceptible to the implication alleged by Metabolife -that it implies consensus in the scientific community. As the district court noted, 72 F. Supp. 2d at 1166, the issue of actual malice (or, to put it another way, intent to convey the defamatory impression) cannot be properly disposed of by a motion to dismiss in this case, where there has been no discovery. Therefore, we reverse the district court's alternative holding that the statement was incapable of supporting the implication alleged. The defendants may challenge whether the asserted implication was made with actual malice at summary judgment, should the case proceed that far. 78 The identity of the experts consulted by Wornick is also critical to Metabolife's burden -without the ability to depose the experts relied on, Metabolife will be faced with a moving target its attempt to disprove consensus. Therefore, limited discovery should be allowed on this issue, as discussed supra. 79