Opinion ID: 1910345
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statements Allegedly Made By Huang in the Course of the Rochen Litigation

Text: 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.