Opinion ID: 774843
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alternative First Amendment Rulings

Text: 66
67 The district court held, sua sponte, that[e]ven if Metabolife proved its prima facie case of falsity about the statement that You can die from taking this product,  the statement is protected as a `rational interpretation' of the ambiguous and unresolved state of scientific knowledge regarding the safety of products like Metabolife.  72 F. Supp. 2d at 1170. The court concluded that, Given the controversy surrounding the safety of Metabolife 356, Defendant Blackburn's statement is incapable of supporting a finding of actual malice. Id. at 1171. 68 At this point, the context of Dr. Blackburn's statement should be discussed. Only a small portion of Dr. Blackburn's interview with Wornick was broadcast during theinvestigative report -the rest was edited out. The full text of the relevant portion of the interview shows that Dr. Blackburn actually said: 69 The documents from the FDA hearings remained on the Internet in 1999, when we did this work years ago, and they know, even today as I know, there are people taking similar types of these products who are getting heart attacks, and of course the abuse [sic] can lead to death. But I mean, you can die from taking this product. 70 All the audience heard from this portion of the interview was You can die from taking this product. 71 On our facts, Dr. Blackburn is not responsible for the subsequent editing of his interview -he is only responsible for his comments in their full and complete form, not the sound bites they became. When viewed in its entirety, his statement makes two assertions: (1) people using products similar to Metabolife 356 have had incidents of heart attacks, and (2) abuse of Metabolife 356 can cause death. Metabolife does not dispute the validity of these statements anywhere in its pleadings. Accordingly, the dismissal of the causes of action against Dr. Blackburn is affirmed. 72 As for the rational interpretation doctrine, it has no bearing on Dr. Blackburn's statement as edited by Wornick and her co-defendants. The protection for rational interpretation serves First Amendment principles by allowing an author the interpretive license that is necessary when relying upon ambiguous sources. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 519 (1991). The district court applied the doctrine to Dr. Blackburn's statement because [i]f the First Amendment provides heightened protection for rational comment on stereo speakers, 17 it should also protect scientific comment on issues as important as public health.  72 F. Supp. 2d at 1172, fn.15. 73 It is clear that the defendants' editing of Dr. Blackburn's statement changed its meaning. Even if the complete statement is subject to protection under the rational interpretation doctrine, Wornick and her co-defendants cannot piggyback on that protection after they changed its meaning by cutting out the crucial qualification that abuse  can lead to death. The sound bite presented by Wornick and the station finds no protection in the rational interpretation doctrine. 74
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
80 Metabolife argues that by discounting the Vanderbilt University study, the broadcast implied that Metabolife 356 had not been tested for safety. The argument is largely based on the introductory comment: Remember that ad calling Metabolife clinically tested for safety? The logic goes that by then discounting the Vanderbilt study, 19 without mentioning alternative studies of which Wornick was allegedly aware, the broadcast implied that no valid safety testing had been conducted. 81 The district court disagreed, holding that the statement regarding the Vanderbilt study was literally true, and that even if the statement supported the defamatory implication, Metabolife could not prove the implication false because it had submitted no valid affirmative safety studies: 82 The remaining propositions, which focus on the alleged implication that no scientific studies support the safety of Metabolife 356, are protected as substantially true. At the time of the broadcasts, the Chinese animal studies were the only studies touting the safety of Metabolife 356. For the reasons that the court describes above, those studies are so insubstantial as to be essentially the same as no studies  for purposes of the gist if Defendants' public concern speech. 83 72 F. Supp. 2d at 1174-75 (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). Because we have reversed the district court's exclusion of the Asian animal studies and remanded for further Daubert consideration, supra, we reverse this holding and remand it as well. If on remand the Asian animal studies are again excluded, then the district court's analysis would ring true. 84
85 Metabolife sought relief for statements that Metabolife 356 and methamphetamine share the same main ingredient,the controlled substance ephedrine, a powerful heart stimulant. To prove falsity, Metabolife offers expert testimony that synthetic ephedrine, the active ingredient in methamphetamine, is distinct from ma huang, or naturally-occurring ephedrine, the active ingredient in Metabolife 356. The expert declared that although synthetic and naturally-occurring ephedrine have similar effects, synthetic ephedrine is several times more potent than its naturally-occurring counterpart. The district court rejected Metabolife's argument because [t]he fact that Metabolife requires expert scientific opinion to describe the limited factual differences between ma huang and[synthetic] ephedrine convinces the court that such fine distinctions would have no effect on the state of minds [sic ] of the audience had they been raised by Defendant Wornick. 72 F. Supp. 2d at 1176. 86 The district court's holding was legally erroneous. A statement is not substantially true if itwould have a different effect on the mind of the reader [or viewer ] from that which the pleaded truth would have produced. Masson, 501 U.S. at 517 (quoting R. Sack, Libel, Slander, and Related Problems 139 (1980)). Here, Metabolife introduced evidence that the synthetic ephedrine used in methamphetamine has significantly different potency and absorption rates than naturally-occurring ephedrine. The district court rejected this argument out-of-hand, holding essentially that the argument was too technical for viewers to grasp. 72 F. Supp. 2d at 1176. This holding was in error. 87 We do not agree with the district court that distinctions between natural and synthetic forms of substances are beyond a reasonable viewer's comprehension, especially when the distinction comes with substantial differences in potency and absorption rates. Anyone who knows the difference between a double espresso and a regular cup of coffee should understand that a reasonable jury could have found the differences in potency and absorption significant. The dissent may be correct that synthetic and naturally-occurring ephedrine are technically the same substance, but we are unprepared to make that holding on this record. 20 Deciding only that which was decided below, we reverse and remand the district court's ruling that the statement that Metabolife 356 and methamphetamine share the same ingredient is substantially true as a matter of law. On remand, the district court should consider whether it is substantially true that, when considering Metabolife's proffered evidence on potency and absorption (so far as its reliability and relevance extends), synthetic and naturally-occurring ephedrine are the same main ingredient.