SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., Case No. 2012 CA 008263 Plaintiff, Judge Alfred S. Irving v. Status Hearing: ORAL HEARING REQUESTED NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., et al., Defendants. DEFENDANT MARK STEYN’S RULE 56 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 56, Defendant Mark Steyn moves the Court for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him on the ground that there exists no genuine dispute as to any material fact and Defendant Steyn is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accompanying this motion is a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support, a Statement pursuant to Superior Court Rule 56 Civil Rule 56(b)(2)(A) of Undisputed Facts, a Declaration from counsel attaching copies of exhibits, and a Proposed Order. RULE 12-I Certification Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12-I, counsel for Steyn (Daniel J. Kornstein) conferred with counsel for Plaintiff (John B. Williams) via telephone on January 18, 2021 for approximately ten minutes to ascertain whether Plaintiff would consent to the relief sought by this motion. Plaintiff declined. Dated: January 22, 2021 Oral Hearing Requested EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL, LLP By: ________________________________________________________________________ DDanielaniiel J. KKornsteinoorrnstein 600 Fifth AAvenuevenue New York, New York 10020 (212) 763-5000 [email protected] and CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 1025 Jefferson Street, NW Suite 400 West Washington, DC 20007-5028 (202) 965-8112 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Mark Steyn 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION ) MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 2012 CA 008263 B v. ) Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr. ) NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANT STEYN’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP 600 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10020 (212) 763-5000 and CARLTON FIELDS P.A. 1025 Jefferson Street, NW Suite 400 West Washington, DC 20007-5028 (202) 965-8112 Attorneys for Defendant Mark Steyn TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii FOOTBALL AND HOCKEY ........................................................................................................ 2 THE FREEH REPORT FAULTS PENN STATE’S INADEQUATE FOOTBALL INVESTIGATION FOR AVOIDING BAD PUBLICITY ............................................................. 3 MANN’S HOCKEY STICK WAR ................................................................................................ 4 STEYN’S BLOG POST ................................................................................................................. 5 PENN STATE’S WHITEWASHED INVESTIGATION OF MANN ........................................... 6 1. Inquiry Committee Improprieties. .......................................................................... 7 2. Investigatory Committee Improprieties. ............................................................... 12 MANN’S IMPROPER MOTIVE FOR SUING ........................................................................... 13 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 17 I. STEYN’S STATEMENTS WERE TRUE: PENN STATE’S INVESTIGATION OF MANN WAS INADEQUATE AND THE HOCKEY STICK IS MISLEADING .......................................................... 17 A. Penn State’s Investigation of Mann Was Inadequate ............................... 18 B. The Hockey Stick Is Fraudulent ............................................................... 19 II. STEYN PUBLISHED WITHOUT ACTUAL MALICE ..................................... 22 A. Steyn Believed with a Good Faith Basis His Statements Were True ....... 23 B. Steyn’s Criticisms of Penn State Are Rooted in Credible Sources ........... 24 C. Steyn’s Criticisms of the Hockey Stick Were Based on Credible Sources ....................................................................................... 25 D. Mann Has Not Been “Exonerated” ........................................................... 27 III. STEYN’S POST WAS NOT DEFAMATORY, AS IT WAS PART OF A VIGOROUS DEBATE ABOUT MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN ............. 28 A. Steyn’s Post Appeared in an Opinion Magazine ...................................... 30 i PAGE B. Steyn’s Post Appeared on a Blog.............................................................. 30 C. Steyn’s Post Appeared Amid a Vigorous Debate ..................................... 31 IV. MANN CAN SHOW NO HARM CAUSED BY STEYN’S STATEMENTS .... 32 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 34 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE(S) Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, 975 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013) .............................................................................................30 Armstrong v. Thompson, 80 A.3d 177 (D.C. 2013) .........................................................................................................17 Beeton v. Dist. of Columbia, 779 A.2d 918 (D.C. 2001) .......................................................................................................23 Bellavia Blatt & Crosset P.C. v. Kel & Partners, 151 F. Supp. 3d 287 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) .....................................................................................31 Bierman v. Weier, 826 N.W.2d 436 (Iowa 2013) ..................................................................................................34 Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Mann, 150 A.3d 1213 (D.C. 2016), as amended (Dec. 13, 2018) .............................................. passim Doe v. Burke, 91 A.3d 1031 (D.C. 2014) .......................................................................................................23 Farah v. Esquire Magazine, 736 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................................30, 32 Gertz v. Robert WeIch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) ...........................................................................................................33, 35 Gobin v. Globe Pub. Co., 649 P.2d 1239 (Kan. 1982) ......................................................................................................34 Guliford Transp. Industries v. Wilner, 760 A.2d 580 (D.C. 2000) ................................................................................................. 30-31 Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) ...................................................................................................................30 Jacobus v. Trump, 51 N.Y.S.3d 330, 337 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2017). .................................................................32 Metromedia, Inc. v. Hillman, 400 A.2d 1117 (Md. 1979) ......................................................................................................34 Meyers v. Plan Takoma, Inc., 472 A.2d 44 (D.C. 1983) ...........................................................................................................1 iii PAGE(S) Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, 497 U.S. 1 (1990) .....................................................................................................................29 Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31 (D.C. 1979) ...........................................................................................................1 Nat’l Review, Inc. v. Mann, 140 S.Ct. 344 (2019) ................................................................................................................35 Nazeri v. Mo. Valley Coll., 860 S.W.2d 303 (Mo. 1993) ....................................................................................................34 Ollman v. Evans, 750 F. 2d 970 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ........................................................................................ passim Pate v. Serv. Merch. Co., Inc., 959 S.W.2d 569 (Tenn. App. 1996) .........................................................................................34 PDK Labs v. Ashcroft, 338 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004) .............................................................................................17 Renwick v. News & Observer Pub. Co., 310 N.C. 312 (1984) ................................................................................................................26 Robertson v. McCloskey, 680 F. Supp. 414 (D.D.C. 1988) ..............................................................................................32 Rosen v. Am. Israel Pub. Affairs Comm., Inc., 41 A.3d 1250 (D.C. 2012) .......................................................................................................17 Sandals Resorts Int’l Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 86 A.D.3d 32 (1st Dep’t 2011) ................................................................................................31 Schmalenberg v. Tacoma News, Inc., 943 P.2d 350 (Wash. App. 1997) .............................................................................................34 Schoen v. Washington Post, 246 F.2d 670 (D.C. Cir. 1957) .................................................................................................33 Smith v. Durden, 276 P.3d 943 (N.M. 2012) .......................................................................................................34 St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968) ..........................................................................................................