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

Heading: The Statement Regarding the Vanderbilt Study

Text: 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