Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT QOURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIAp^g   g 20  
ATLANTA D I V I S I O N

DAVIDE M. CARBONE,
Plaintiff
C I V I L ACTION NO.
1:16-CV-1720-ODE
CABLE NEWS NETWORK,

INC.,

Defendant

ORDER
T h i s d e f a m a t i o n case i s b e f o r e t h e C o u r t o n D e f e n d a n t

Cable News

N e t w o r k , I n c . ' s ("CNN") M o t i o n t o S t r i k e P u r s u a n t t o OCGA § 9-11-11.1
or, i ntheAlternative,
F.R.Civ.P.

12(b)(6)

("Plaintiff")
replied

t o Dismiss P l a i n t i f f ' s
[Doc. 5 ] .

has responded

[Doc. 19] .

Also

Complaint Pursuant t o

Plaintiff

i n opposition

b e f o r e t h e Court

Davide

M.

Carbone

[Doc. 14] a n d CNN h a s
i s the Brief

of Amici

C u r i a e G e o r g i a P r e s s A s s o c i a t i o n , G e o r g i a F i r s t Amendment F o u n d a t i o n ,
The A t l a n t a J o u r n a l - C o n s t i t u t i o n , WAGA Fox 5, a n d t h e M o t i o n
A s s o c i a t i o n o f America,
O.C.G.A.

§

9-11-11.1,

Retroactivity
opposition

t o which

i sPlaintiff's

has responded

[Doc. 2 3 ] .

and
i n

Additionally

[Doc. 9 ] , t o w h i c h CNN h a s

[Doc. 11] a n d P l a i n t i f f
s e t f o r t h below,

a l t e r n a t i v e l y t o d i s m i s s i s DENIED.

Court

56(d) M o t i o n f o r D i s c o v e r y t o

Anti-SLAPP M o t i o n

i n opposition

For t h e reasons

Rule

i n Federal

Plaintiff

[Doc. 21] and A m i c i have r e p l i e d

Respond t o D e f e n d a n t ' s

13].

of the Constitutionality of

I t sApplicability

[Doc. 2 0 - 1 ] ,

before t h e Court

responded

I n c . i n Support

Picture

h a s r e p l i e d [Doc.

CNN's m o t i o n

t o strike or

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 2 of 18

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff

i s t h e former Chief Executive O f f i c e r

Mary's M e d i c a l Center l o c a t e d
Doc. 1 a t 5-6] .

i n West Palm Beach, F l o r i d a

On May 26, 2016, he f i l e d

this

a g a i n s t CNN f o r i t s p u b l i c a t i o n o f "a s e r i e s
news r e p o r t s ,

articles,

2015" a n d a v a i l a b l e
alleged

that

CNN

("CEO") o f S t .
[Compl.,

defamation

action

o f f a l s e and defamatory

a n d s o c i a l media p o s t s b e g i n n i n g o n June 1 ,

t o the

public

published

a

t o this

total

d a y [ I d . a t 1] .

of twenty-five

He has

such

reports

r e l a t i n g t o the

infant mortality rate

f o r open-heart surgery a t S t .

Mary's

CNN's r e p o r t s

that

three

[Id.].
times

the national

alleged
average;

this

m o r t a l i t y r a t e was

Plaintiff

alleges

that

" i n t e n t i o n a l l y manipulated s t a t i s t i c s to f a b r i c a t e i t s claim"

CNN

[Id. at

24] .
CNN's
picture

reports

intermittently

i n connection with

apparently

sent

a

statements

reporter

comment" and i n s t e a d

St.

from

"ambushed" P l a i n t i f f

of t h e series,

that

CNN
to

also

obtain

"in front of

I t then reported

"at a l l r e l e v a n t

Mary's a t h i s

that

[Doc.

14-1

at5].

home.

m e d i c a l community i n F l o r i d a
Executive

Officer

responsible

recognized

oversight

he was f o r c e d
2

[Plaintiff]

a n d as

public
as t h e

the individual

and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

[Compl., Doc. 1 a t 4 9 - 5 0 ] .

o f t h e CNN s e r i e s

He

times and p r i o r t o p u b l i c a t i o n

o f S t . Mary's

f o r the

CNN

Plaintiff

i t was w e l l known t o CNN t h a t members o f t h e

h o s p i t a l program"
because

name a n d

Mary's r e p e a t e d l y d e n i e d r e q u e s t s f o r i n t e r v i e w s ,

f u r t h e r alleges

ultimately

Mary's.

and h i s w i f e

[ I d . a t 46].

s h u t t h e g a r a g e d o o r w i t h o u t commenting"

Chief

St.

"purportedly

a p p r o a c h e d D a v i d e Carbone, t h e CEO o f S t .

and t h e

Plaintiff's

t o h i s home,

t h e i r home e a r l y i n t h e m o r n i n g "
"[a] f t e r

included

of the

P l a i n t i f f asserts

t o resign

as CEO o f

that
St.

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 3 of 18

M a r y ' s a n d has y e t t o s e c u r e o t h e r employment; he h a s a l s o a l l e g e d l y
r e c e i v e d " m u l t i p l e v i l e and h a t e f u l t e l e p h o n e c a l l s "
After Plaintiff

f i l e d h i s Complaint,

the b a s i s o f Georgia's

[ I d . a t 50-52].

CNN moved t o s t r i k e

i t on

anti-SLAPP s t a t u t e , see O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1,

o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m [Doc.
5] .
of

The C o u r t p e r m i t t e d a n A m i c i C u r i a e b r i e f
theapplication

[Docs. 2 0 , 2 0 - 1 ] .

o f Georgia's

[Doc. 27] i n s u p p o r t

anti-SLAPP p r o v i s i o n

t othis

case

Were t h i s C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e a n t i - S L A P P

p r o v i s i o n a p p l i e s . P l a i n t i f f has r e q u e s t e d l e a v e t o c o n d u c t d i s c o v e r y
i n t o CNN's a l l e g e d a c t u a l m a l i c e p u r s u a n t t o t h e s t a t u t e
II.

[Doc.

9].

MOTION TO STRIKE/APPLICABILITY OF ANTI-SLAPP
CNN f i r s t

basis

o f Georgia's

applies
act

seeks t o s t r i k e

.

t o cases
.

speech

against

. which

furtherance

anti-SLAPP

could

statute

"a p e r s o n
reasonably

o f t h e person's

under

Plaintiff's

interest

applicable,
move

or entity

o r concern."

be c o n s t r u e d
right

the claim,

O.C.G.A.

"unless

provision
f r o m an

as a n a c t

of petition
States

i n

o r free
o rt h e

i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h an i s s u e o f
§ 9-11-11.1(b)(1).

the statute allows the protected

t o strike

This
arising

o f t h e United

C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e State o f Georgia
public

[Doc. 5 ] .

or entity's

the Constitution

d e f a m a t i o n c l a i m on t h e

the

I f

"person o r e n t i t y " t o

court

determines

that the

n o n m o v i n g p a r t y has e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e r e i s a p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e
nonmoving

party

will

prevail

discovery i shalted u n t i l
except

"that

public

figure p l a i n t i f f ,

to

on t h e c l a i m . "

t h e Court

Id.

Generally,

r u l e s on t h e motion t o s t r i k e ,

i f there exists a claim that

t h e nonmoving p a r t y

is a

t h e n t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y s h a l l be e n t i t l e d

d i s c o v e r y on t h e sole

issue

o f actual

3

malice

whenever

actual

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 4 of 18

malice

i s relevant

t o t h e court's

determination."

I d . § 9-11-

1 1 . 1 ( b ) (2) .
Plaintiff
anti-SLAPP

opposes CNN's m o t i o n o n t h r e e

regime

i s unconstitutional

Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d
procedural

pursuant

States C o n s t i t u t i o n ;
i n federal

t o t h e Seventh

(2) t h e s t a t u t e
court;

i sa

(3) CNN

i m p e r m i s s i b l y seeks r e t r o a c t i v e p r o t e c t i o n f r o m t h e s t a t u t e

[Doc. 14

Finding

inapplicable

(1) G e o r g i a ' s

and

a t 8-20].

device

grounds:

t h e s e c o n d argument p e r s u a s i v e , t h e C o u r t need n o t

a d d r e s s t h e o t h e r t w o g r o u n d s f o r d e n y i n g CNN's m o t i o n t o s t r i k e .
A.

L e g a l Standard

"It

i swell

established

case t h a t a r i s e s
apply

state

t h a t when a f e d e r a l

under i t s d i v e r s i t y

substantive

jurisdiction,

l a w and f e d e r a l

N e t w o r k , I n c . v . H a r r i s , 756 F.3d 1351,
Hanna v . Plumer ,

court

procedural

considers a

t h ecourt
law."

is to
Royalty

1357 ( l l t h C i r . 2014) ( c i t i n g

380 U.S. 460, 465 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ) .

In striking

down a

d i f f e r e n t p r o v i s i o n o f S e c t i o n 9-11-11.1, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f
Appeals f o r t h e Eleventh C i r c u i t e l u c i d a t e d

t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s t e s t

f o r substance versus procedure.
"'Under
applied

t h e Hanna

is a

test,

congressional

Procedure, t h e d i s t r i c t court

when

the federal

statute
must f i r s t

l a w sought

o r Federal

Rule

t o be

of

Civil

decide whether t h e s t a t u t e

i s s u f f i c i e n t l y broad t o c o n t r o l t h e issue before t h e Court.'" I d . a t
1357-58

(quoting

procedural
conflicts

rule
with

Hanna,

380 U.S.

i s sufficiently
the state

Essentially,

and c o n f l i c t

broad

" ' I f the federal

t o control

law, t h e f e d e r a l

i n s t e a d o f t h e s t a t e law.'"
465).

a t 465).

t h e i s s u e and

procedural

rule

applies

I d ^ a t 1358 ( q u o t i n g Hanna, 380 U.S. a t

i fthefederal

r u l e and t h e s t a t e

s u c h t h a t b o t h c a n n o t be a p p l i e d
4

rule

overlap

harmoniously, then the

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 5 of 18

Court considers the v a l i d i t y

of the

Orthopedic

A l l s t a t e Ins.

(2010)

Assocs..

v.

( c i t i n g B u r l i n g t o n N.

"A f e d e r a l
rule

P.A.

. . . only

A c t , 28

rule

R.R.

applies

federal

Co.

in

rule.
Co.,

See

559

Shady Grove

U.S.

v . Woods, 480 U.S.

the

face

of

a

393,
1

(1987)).

conflicting

state

i f the f e d e r a l r u l e comports w i t h the Rules E n a b l i n g

U.S.C. § 2072, and

the

Constitution."

R o y a l t y Network,

F.3d a t 1358

( c i t i n g G a s p e r i n i v. C t r . f o r H u m a n i t i e s , I n c . , 518

415, 427

(1996)).

n.7

Only i f the

" f e d e r a l r u l e i s not

[should]

the

district

p r o n g o f t h e Hanna t e s t ,
E r i e and

court

.

.

. then proceed
the d i s t r i c t

U.S.

to

the

second
apply

i t s progeny t o d e t e r m i n e 'whether f a i l u r e t o a p p l y the

state

t o d i f f e r e n t outcomes i n s t a t e and

court

state

to

law would lead

which requires

756

sufficiently

b r o a d t o c o v e r t h e i s s u e o r does n o t d i r e c t l y c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e
law

398

federal court

and

r e s u l t i n i n e q u i t a b l e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the laws or forum shopping.'"
Id.

( q u o t i n g B u r k e v.
B.

S m i t h , 252

1260,

1265

( l l t h Cir.

2001)).

Discussion

- The
answers

f i r s t question
the

question

f o r the Court i s thus whether a f e d e r a l
in

standard f o r the

Plaintiff

certainly

does.

Federal

dismissal

of

relief

F.3d

can

a

be

complaint

dispute,

namely

to maintain
Rule of

necessary

h i s case a t t h i s

Civil

for "failure

the

Procedure
to

state

pleading

stage;

12(b)(6)

a claim

rule

one

permits

upon w h i c h

granted."

[A] c o m p l a i n t must c o n t a i n
s u f f i c i e n t f a c t u a l matter,
a c c e p t e d as t r u e , t o s t a t e a c l a i m t o r e l i e f t h a t i s
p l a u s i b l e on i t s face..
A c l a i m has f a c i a l p l a u s i b i l i t y
when t h e p l a i n t i f f p l e a d s f a c t u a l c o n t e n t t h a t a l l o w s t h e
c o u r t t o draw t h e r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t
i s l i a b l e f o r the misconduct a l l e g e d .
A s h c r o f t V.

I q b a l , 556

U.S.

q u o t a t i o n marks o m i t t e d ) .

662,
The

678

(2009)

standard

5

( c i t a t i o n s and

internal

" c a l l s f o r enough f a c t

to

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 6 of 18

r a i s e a reasonable
of the claim.
It

i s not

expectation that discovery w i l l

B e l l A t l . Corp. v. Twomblv, 550

necessary

for a

complaint

to

set

reveal

U.S.

544,

out

evidence"

556

a l l the

(2007) .
facts

d e t a i l , b u t a p l a i n t i f f has t o a t l e a s t a l l e g e "enough f a c t u a l
( t a k e n as t r u e ) t o s u g g e s t "
Id^;

the claim.
1296

see

( l l t h Cir.
Not

only

standard,

a l s o Watts v. F l a . I n t ' l

Univ.,

does

Rule

12(b) (6)

conflicts

address

1 1 - 1 1 . 1 (b) (1) a l l o w s a d e f e n d a n t
at t h i s
upon

e a r l y stage

the

has b e e n met.

678,

while

1289,

pleading

w i t h G e o r g i a ' s anti-SLAPP

statute.

itself

The

i n the proceedings.
motion.
that

like

9-

Rule
see

requires

Rule

9-11-11.1(b)(1)

a basic pleading

arises i n that

9-11-11.1(b)(1)

Also

Section

on t h e f a c e o f t h e c o m p l a i n t ,

Section

"plus" standard f o r

L i k e Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , S e c t i o n

the p l a i n t i f f

conflict

to

t o move t o s t r i k e o r d i s m i s s a c l a i m

defendant's

r e q u i r e s a showing by

"plausibility"

F.Sd

the

c a s e s w i t h a F i r s t Amendment n e x u s .

12(b)(6),

495

2007).

i t directly

relief

matter

the existence of the r e q u i r e d elements of

The s t a t u t e e s s e n t i a l l y c r e a t e s a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 )

for

in

standard

12(b)(6) requires
Iqbal,
a

556

U.S.

at

probability

of

prevailing.
CNN

argues

that

the

probability

supplements" the f e d e r a l p l a u s i b i l i t y

standard
standard

at

issue

[see Doc.

"merely

19

at 5 ] ,

b u t i m p o s i n g an a d d i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t on t h e p l a i n t i f f a t t h i s
i s p r e c i s e l y where t h e i s s u e l i e s .
that

"[a]sking for plausib [ i l i t y ]

The
. .

requirement at the p l e a d i n g stage"
c o m p l a i n t may
proof

of

those

Supreme C o u r t has b e e n c l e a r
does n o t impose a p r o b a b i l i t y

" [ a ] n d , of course, a w e l l - p l e a d e d

p r o c e e d even i f i t s t r i k e s
facts

r e m o t e and u n l i k e l y . ' "

stage

i s improbable,
Twombly, 550
6

and
U.S.

a savvy judge
'that
a t 556

that actual

a recovery

i s very

( q u o t i n g Scheuer v.

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 7 of 18

Rhodes, 416 U.S.

232

(1974)) .

By i t s v e r y d e f i n i t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , t h e

Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) p l a u s i b i l i t y requirement
cannot

coexist

with

Section

not o n l y c o n f l i c t s ,

9-11-11.1(b) ( 1 ) ' s

but

also

probability

requirement.
Thus,

the

Court

t u r n s t o the

second q u e s t i o n

i t must

w h e t h e r R u l e 12 (b) (6) c o m p o r t s w i t h t h e R u l e s E n a b l i n g
United States Constitution.^

The

if

procedure'"

i t "'really

manner

and

the

'enforced [ . ] ' "
W i l s o n & Co.,
326 U.S.

regulate[s]
means'

Shadv
312

438,

Grove,

U.S.

446

by

which

The

before

id^,

to

court

and

t h e i r enforcement.

litigants'
407

only

'the

rights

are

(quoting Sibbach

Rule

t o a Federal

12(b)(6)

r e l a t e o n l y t o how

bear not

at

"govern[ing]

Supreme C o u r t

s t a t u t o r y challenge

Pleading standards

the

v.

( 1 9 4 1 ) ; M i s s . P u b l ' g Corp. v . M u r p h r e e ,

(1946)).

and

by

the

U.S.

" r e j e c t e d every
[it],"

and

R u l e p a s s e s m u s t e r and t h u s a p p l i e s

559

1, 14

Act

answer,

a t a l l on

should

notes

substance

i t has

R u l e t h a t has
be

a l i t i g a n t may

the

that

no

come

different.

b r i n g h i s claims

of

those

rights

or

R u l e 1 2 ( b ) (6) t h u s c l e a r s t h e s e c o n d s t e p i n t h e

Hanna t e s t and a p p l i e s h e r e i n s t e a d o f G e o r g i a ' s a n t i - S L A P P s t a t u t e .
In
split.
(9th

reaching
See

Cir.

i t s d e c i s i o n , the

Travelers
2016)

Cas.

Court

I n s . Co.

(Kozinski,

J.,

v.

i s wading

Hirsh,

concurring).

831

into
F.3d

CNN

a

circuit

1179,

1183

argues

that

G e o r g i a ' s r e v i s e d anti-SLAPP s t a t u t e m i r r o r s i n a l l m a t e r i a l r e s p e c t s
t h o s e o f C a l i f o r n i a , M a i n e , Oregon, and
Fifth,

Louisiana, which the

and N i n t h C i r c u i t s have f o u n d v a l i d i n f e d e r a l c o u r t

First,

[Doc.

19

' A l t h o u g h n e i t h e r p a r t y d i s p u t e s t h a t i t does [see Doc. 19 a t 5
n . l ] , n e v e r t h e l e s s the Court considers the q u e s t i o n f o r purposes of
a complete a n a l y s i s .
7

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 8 of 18

at

5-6] .

The

Court

v a r i o u s l y takes

issue

with

each

of

these

precedents.
F o r e x a m p l e , t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t case a d o p t i n g C a l i f o r n i a ' s
SLAPP s t a t u t e d e t e r m i n e d
federal

t h a t t h e r e was no d i r e c t c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e

r u l e because a l i t i g a n t

s t r i k e could subsequently
dismiss[.]"

anti-

b r i n g i n g an u n s u c c e s s f u l

motion t o

" r e m a i n [ ] f r e e t o b r i n g a R u l e 12 m o t i o n t o

See Newsham v . L o c k h e e d M i s s i l e s & Space Co., 190 F.3d

963, 972 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) .

A f t e r t h i s d e c i s i o n , however, t h e Supreme

Court r e i t e r a t e d t h a t t h e proper

s t a n d a r d u n d e r Hanna i s n o t w h e t h e r

a s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l l a w may p o t e n t i a l l y be a p p l i e d i n s u c c e s s i o n , b u t
whether a f e d e r a l law a l r e a d y addresses t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e proper
pleading standard.
i n recent years.

See Shadv Grove, 559 U.S. a t 398.

Furthermore,

Judge K o z i n k s i a n d s e v e r a l o f h i s c o l l e a g u e s

have

c h a l l e n g e d t h e wisdom o f t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t ' s c o n t i n u e d t o l e r a n c e f o r
anti-SLAPP s t a t u t e s g i v e s t h a t t h e i r " p r o b a b i l i t y " s t a n d a r d
conflicts
test

w i t h Federal

R u l e 12, w h i c h p r o v i d e s

f o r evaluating claims

"plausib[ility]"

standard.

a t the pleading
Travelers

a

"directly

one-size-fits-all

stage"

pursuant

t o the

Cas. I n s . , 8 3 1 F.3d a t 1183

( K o z i n s k i , J . , c o n c u r r i n g ) ; see M a k a e f f v . Trump U n i v . , LLC, 715 F.3d
254, 275 ( 9 t h C i r . 2013) ( K o z i n s k i , J . , c o n c u r r i n g )
b i g mistake.
followed
In
this
SLAPP

Two o t h e r c i r c u i t s

("Newsham was a

[ t h e F i r s t a n d F i f t h ] have f o o l i s h l y

it.").
c o n s i d e r i n g these

Court

i n other

circuits,

a g r e e s w i t h Judge K o z i n s k i - - t h e a r g u m e n t t h a t

the anti-

statutes

somehow

c o m p l a i n t [ , ] " w h i l e Rule

subsequent

do

decisions

not

"test

12(b)(6)

does,

the sufficiency
i s simply

G o d i n V . Schencks, 629 F.3d 79, 89 ( 1 s t C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) .

of the

not persuasive.
I n fact, the

c o u r t i n H e n r y v . Lack C h a r l e s A m e r i c a n P r e s s , LLC, 566 F.3d 164, 1 8 1
8

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 9 of 18

(sth

Cir.

2009),

simply

assumed

the applicability

anti-SLAPP s t a t u t e i n f e d e r a l c o u r t w i t h o u t

analysis

o f Louisiana's
o f any k i n d , a

d e c i s i o n upon w h i c h t h i s C o u r t c a n n o t p o s s i b l y base i t s own.
Instead,

this

Court

has l o o k e d

t o Judge Kavanaugh's

thorough

a n a l y s i s i n Abbas v . F o r e i g n P o l i c y Group, LLC, 783 F.3d 1328
Cir.

2015),

and found i t p e r s u a s i v e .

Unlike

H e n r y , Judge Kavanagh b e g i n s w i t h an a n a l y s i s
statute

a n d w h e t h e r i t has a n y p l a c e

Ninth Circuit

i n Newsham, he a p p l i e s

e l u c i d a t e d b y t h e Supreme C o u r t
1333.

theFifth

Circuit i n

o f D.C.'s a n t i - S L A P P

i n federal
thecorrect

court;

unlike the

l e g a l s t a n d a r d as

i n Shady Grove a n d Hanna.

Finally, unlike the First

Circuit

(D.C.

Id.

at

i n G o d i n , Judge Kavanaugh

n o t e s t h a t w h i l e b o t h t h e a n t i - S L A P P s t a t u t e a n d R u l e 12 " e s t a b l i s h [ ]
the

circumstances

claim before

under which

t r i a l [,]"

a court

t h e Rule

must

dismiss

"do[es] n o t r e q u i r e

a

plaintiff's

a plaintiff to

show a l i k e l i h o o d o f s u c c e s s o n t h e m e r i t s " i n t h e manner demanded b y
the s t a t u t e .

I d . a t 1333-34.

t h a t t h e two a r e i n c o n f l i c t

I n t h i s way, he a g r e e s w i t h t h i s

Court

a n d c a n n o t c o - e x i s t ; as i n D.C,

here,

t h e Georgia anti-SLAPP s t a t u t e i m p e r m i s s i b l y

" s e t [ s ] up an a d d i t i o n a l

h u r d l e a p l a i n t i f f must jump o v e r t o g e t t o t r i a l "
Id.

i n federal

court.

a t 1334.
Thus, b e c a u s e R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 )

b o t h "answers t h e same q u e s t i o n " as

S e c t i o n 9-11-11.1 (b) (1) a n d i s v a l i d u n d e r t h e R u l e s E n a b l i n g A c t a n d
the

United

diversity

States

Constitution,

jurisdiction

.

.

" [ a ]federal

. must

apply"

court

exercising

the federal

rule

on

d i s m i s s a l and n o t t h e s p e c i a l anti-SLAPP m o t i o n t o s t r i k e p r o v i s i o n .
Abbas, 783 F.3d a t 1337.

CNN's m o t i o n t o s t r i k e b a s e d on G e o r g i a ' s

a n t i - S L A P P l a w [Doc. 5] i s DENIED.

T h i s a l s o means t h a t

Plaintiff's

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 10 of 18

motion

f o r additional

d i s c o v e r y as t o a c t u a l

malice

pursuant t o

S e c t i o n 9-11-11.1(b) (2) [Doc. 9] i s DISMISSED AS MOOT.
III.

MOTION TO DISMISS
The

Court

thus

continues

with

CNN's

alternative

motion t o

d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m u p o n w h i c h r e l i e f c a n be g r a n t e d
p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 2 ( b ) (6) [Doc. 5] .

I n r u l i n g on t h e pending m o t i o n ,

a l l of the well-pleaded factual allegations i n P l a i n t i f f ' s

Complaint

must be a c c e p t e d as t r u e and c o n s t r u e d i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o
him.

Young A p a r t m e n t s , I n c . v . Town o f J u p i t e r , F l a . , 529 F.Sd 1027,

10S7

(llth

dismiss,

C i r . 2008) .
t h e Court

Plaintiff's

F u r t h e r m o r e , when d e t e r m i n i n g a m o t i o n t o

may

consider

claims and r e f e r r e d

attached

documents

t o by P l a i n t i f f

t h e m o t i o n t o one f o r summary j u d g m e n t .

without

central

to

converting

Brooks v . Blue Cross & Blue

S h i e l d o f F l a . , I n c . , 116 F.Sd 1S64, 1S69 ( l l t h C i r . 1997) .
"While a c o m p l a i n t a t t a c k e d by a Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s
does n o t need d e t a i l e d f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s , a p l a i n t i f f ' s
to

p r o v i d e t h e grounds

than

labels

of his entitlement

and c o n c l u s i o n s , and a

to relief

formulaic

e l e m e n t s o f a cause o f a c t i o n w i l l n o t do."

contain

sufficient

true,

t o state a claim t o r e l i e f

claim

has f a c i a l

plausibility

that
when

requires

recitation

ofthe

factual

More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,

m a t t e r , a c c e p t e d as

i s p l a u s i b l e on i t s f a c e .
the p l a i n t i f f

pleads

the defendant i s l i a b l e f o r the misconduct a l l e g e d . "

motion,

assumed t o be t r u e ,

"the p l a i n t i f f ' s

factual

To s u r v i v e

allegations,

'must be enough t o r a i s e a r i g h t t o r e l i e f
10

that

I q b a l , 556 U.S.

a t 678 ( c i t a t i o n s a n d i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n marks o m i t t e d ) .
12(b)(6)

A

factual

c o n t e n t t h a t a l l o w s t h e c o u r t t o draw t h e r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e

a Rule

more

Twombly, 550 U.S. a t 555

( c i t a t i o n s a n d i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n marks o m i t t e d ) .
"a c o m p l a i n t must

obligation

when
above

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 11 of 18

t h e s p e c u l a t i v e l e v e l . ' " U n i t e d Techs. Corp. v . Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260,
1270

( l l t h C i r . 2009)
A.

( q u o t i n g Twomblv, 550 U.S. a t 5 5 5 ) .

Defamation Under G e o r g i a Law

To

establish

plaintiff

must

a claim

submit

s t a t e m e n t about h i m s e l f ;
party;

for

evidence

defamation

under

Georgia

of

false

and

(1) a

l a w , "a

defamatory

(2) an u n p r i v i l e g e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n t o a t h i r d

(3) f a u l t b y d e f e n d a n t a m o u n t i n g

t o a t l e a s t n e g l i g e n c e ; and

(4) s p e c i a l damages o r d e f a m a t o r y words ' i n j u r i o u s o n t h e i r

face.'"

L e w i s V. M e r e d i t h Corp., 293 Ga. App. 747, 748 (Ga, C t . App. 2008)
(citation

omitted).

neither truly

The s e c o n d

i s the f o u r t h .

element

i s n o t a t i s s u e h e r e , and

G e o r g i a l a w d e f i n e s " d e f a m a t o r y words

' i n j u r i o u s on t h e i r f a c e ' " as " ' c h a r g e s a g a i n s t a n o t h e r i n r e f e r e n c e
to

h i s trade,

therein."'

office,

Infinite

(Ga. C t . App. 2011)
of

defamation

(citing

or profession,

Energy,

calculated

I n c . v . Pardue,

t o i n j u r e him

310 Ga. App. 355,

( q u o t i n g O.C.G.A. § 5 1 - 5 - 4 ( a ) (3) ) .

i s actionable

357

"'This type

p e r se a n d damage i s i n f e r r e d . ' " I d .

S t r a n g e v . H e n d e r s o n , 223 Ga. App. 2 1 8 , 219 (Ga. C t . App.

1996)).

I n this

directly

impacted

Mary's.

case.

Plaintiff

i salleging

him i n h i s professional

I f proven.

Plaintiff's

that

capacity

allegations

CNN's

reporting

as CEO o f

certainly

St.

allege

d e f a m a t i o n p e r se.
The r e a l c r u x o f t h e d i s p u t e b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s l i e s w i t h t h e
first

and t h i r d

elements

o f d e f a m a t i o n , w h i c h may be e v a l u a t e d v i a

t h r e e q u e s t i o n s : (1) does P l a i n t i f f ' s C o m p l a i n t i n d i c a t e t h a t he c a n
meet h i s b u r d e n

t o establish

thefalsity

o f CNN's r e p o r t ,

(2)

was

t h a t r e p o r t i n g a b o u t and p e r t a i n i n g t o P l a i n t i f f h i m s e l f , a n d (3) c a n
Plaintiff
will

e s t a b l i s h CNN's f a u l t

t o t h e r e q u i s i t e degree?

address each o f t h e s e q u e s t i o n s i n t u r n .
11

The C o u r t

I n d o i n g so, i t w i l l

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 12 of 18

c o n s i d e r t h e v a r i o u s CNN
well

as

any

reports attached t o P l a i n t i f f ' s

documents

specifically

C o m p l a i n t , because t h e y a r e
and

(2) u n d i s p u t e d . "

C i r . 2002)
Cir.

referenced i n the

"(1) c e n t r a l

H o r s l e v v.

Feldt,

The

Court w i l l

as

text

of h i s

to the p l a i n t i f f ' s

claim;

304

F.3d

( c i t i n g H a r r i s v . I v a x Corp., 182 F.3d

1999)).

response,

1125,
799,

1134

(llth

802 n.2

(llth

n o t c o n s i d e r any e x t r a n e o u s

affidavits

or declarations improperly before i t .
B.
In

False
a

concern,

case

such

as

Adventure

( l l t h C i r . 2008)

2002)).

"'Georgia

plaintiff,'"
361 n.6

this,

which

a p l a i n t i f f must show t h a t

was f a l s e . "
1298

Reporting

Outdoors,

"involves

a

speech

of

. . . the defamatory

I n c . v . B l o o m b e r g , 552

statement
F.3d

( c i t i n g M a t h i s v . Cannon, 276 Ga. 16,

law p u t s

the burden

public

21

of proving f a l s i t y

i d . ( q u o t i n g S t r a w v. Chase R e v e l , I n c . , 813

1290,
(Ga.

on

the

F.2d

356,

( l l t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) ) , and " ' [ t ] r u t h i s an a b s o l u t e d e f e n s e [ , ] ' "

Monge v . M a d i s o n C t v . R e c o r d , I n c . , 802 F. Supp. 2d 1327,

1333

(llth

C i r . 2011)

1349

(N.D.

the

Court

Ga. 2003)

( q u o t i n g W o l f v . Ramsey, 253 F. Supp. 2d 1323,
(Carnes,

J.)).

However, t o d e t e r m i n e

must c o n s i d e r t h e p u b l i c a t i o n as a w h o l e ,

falsity,

" ' r e a d and c o n s t r u e d i n t h e

sense i n w h i c h t h e r e a d e r s t o whom i t i s a d d r e s s e d
u n d e r s t a n d i t . ' " Lucas v . Cranshaw, 289
App. 2008) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) .

Ga. App.

would
510,

ordinarily

513

(Ga.

Ct.

Facts t h a t are "misstated, d i s t o r t e d

o r a r r a n g e d so as t o c o n v e y a f a l s e and d e f a m a t o r y meaning" g i v e r i s e
to l i a b i l i t y ,
Id.

and i n a c l o s e case, t h i s q u e s t i o n i s one f o r t h e j u r y .

a t 512-13.
As

pleading

a

preliminary
as

statements.

a

whole

"'Georgia

matter,
does

the

include

Court
a

notes

number

that
of

law u n q u e s t i o n a b l y excludes
12

Plaintiff's

non-actionable
from

defamation

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 13 of 18

l i a b i l i t y any statements t h a t
o p i n i o n because t h e i r

f a c t u a l premises

Supp. a t 1335 ( c i t a t i o n
claim

o n a number

parents,
doing

statements

such

. . . a r e c l e a r l y r e c o g n i z a b l e as p u r e

omitted).

of opinions,

a r e r e v e a l e d . ' " Monge, 802 F.

Plaintiff
including

complicated

These

c a n n o t be p r o v e n

heart

statements

are generally a matter

t o calculate

o r arranged

d e f a m a t o r y meaning."
CNN's h e a d l i n e s

problem.

S t . Mary's

Plaintiff's

[this

data]

actual

was a l l e g e d l y

u s i n g o n l y open-heart

"mortality

rate"

Plaintiff

was b a s e d

as 12.5%,
does n o t

CNN " m i s s t a t e d ,

so as t o c o n v e y

that

pleading

a

f a l s e and

The p r o b l e m

t h e 12.5% r a t e

with

was n o t r i s k -

from the Society o f Thoracic

CNN a l l e g e d l y c a l c u l a t e d i t s r a t e

s u r g e r i e s a t St. Mary's, w h i l e t h e " n a t i o n a l
upon

both

[Compl., Doc. 1 a t 2 5 - 3 0 ] .
an

18,

CNN a d m i t s t h a t i t

L u c a s , 289 Ga. App. a t 512.

Surgeons ("STS") was. F u r t h e r m o r e ,

doing

First,

[Id^ at 24].

a d j u s t e d , w h i l e t h e " n a t i o n a l average"

average"

a n d CNN's

o f o p i n i o n and

t h e r a w numbers, b u t i n s t e a d a l l e g e s t h a t

distorted

upset

t r u e o r f a l s e f o r purposes o f a defamation c l a i m .

" t h r e e t i m e s t h e n a t i o n a l average"
dispute

from

[Compl., Doc. 1 a t 12, 13,

appears t o r e s t on two c h i e f a l l e g a t i o n s .
raw d a t a

statements

s u r g e r i e s on newborns[,]"

Perhaps r e c o g n i z i n g t h i s

used

defamation

t h a t S t . Mary's was " e x t r e m e l y i n e x p e r i e n c e d a t

a l l e g e d r e l i a n c e on "biased sources"
19, 20] .

bases h i s

"apples-to-oranges

Plaintiff

and c l o s e d - h e a r t
insists

comparison,"

v i e w e r an i n a c c u r a t e p e r c e p t i o n .
"doubled-down" o n t h e s e

open-

Plaintiff

that

which

surgeries

CNN was t h e r e b y

gave

t h e average

f u r t h e r a l l e g e s t h a t CNN

a s s e r t i o n s , even a f t e r

S t . Mary's drew i t s

a t t e n t i o n t o t h e i n a c c u r a c y b a s e d upon p u b l i c a t i o n s b y t h e STS i t s e l f
[Id.

at 32].

13

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 14 of 18

CNN c o u n t e r s b y p o i n t i n g t o t h e r a w d a t a , t h a t b e t w e e n 2011 a n d
2013 S t . Mary's c o n d u c t e d f o r t y - e i g h t p e d i a t r i c o p e n - h e a r t
of which

s i x were f a t a l

[Doc.

P l a i n t i f f i s not disputing
which

CNN

pointing

used

them

t h e numbers; he i s d i s p u t i n g

as a c o m p a r i s o n .

both sets o f s t a t i s t i c s

a n d were n o t r i s ] ^ - a d j u s t e d
this

therefore
that

The p r o b l e m

CNN

cannot

this

methodology

an academic

[ I d ^ a t 23] .

however,

CNN d i d t h e m a t h , b u t r a t h e r

i s precisely

a n d CNN's

reports

CNN f i n a l l y

argues

disagreement

Plaintiff

over

statistical

i s n o t , however, d i s p u t i n g

whether

i n favor

of Plaintiff,

how

i t compared i t s own math t o a

n o n - c o m p a r a b l e f i g u r e i n a way t h a t m i s l e d i t s v i e w e r s .
inferences

by

t o support i t s

The d i s p u t e

support a motion t o dismiss.

i s simply

responds

were f o r o p e n - h e a r t s u r g e r y

[ I d ^ a t 12] .

was f a c t u a l l y t h e case,

i s that

t h e manner i n

further

t o i t s own, s u p p o s e d l y e r r o n e o u s r e p o r t i n g

assertion that

whether

5-1 a t 1 0 - 1 1 ] .

surgeries,

Drawing a l l

he h a s met h i s b u r d e n

on t h e

f a l s i t y o f CNN's numbers f o r p u r p o s e s o f a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s .
The

second

statements

that

potential

basis

f o r a defamation claim

Florida's

Agency

f o rHealth

Care

i s CNN's

Administration

("AHCA") opened a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o S t . Mary's as a r e s u l t o f i t s
reporting.
a

public

Quite t o the contrary. P l a i n t i f f alleges
statement

"setting

the record

t h a t AHCA i s s u e d

straight"

as

t o CNN's

a s s e r t i o n s i n which i t s t a t e d t h a t i t had conducted normal

oversight

o p e r a t i o n s , b u t t h a t i t was " n o t i n v e s t i g a t i n g "

S t . Mary's

Doc. 1 a t 31-32] .

continued reporting

N e v e r t h e l e s s , CNN a l l e g e d l y

[Compl.,

t h a t a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n was o n - g o i n g .
CNN c o u n t e r s t h a t

the Fair

"proceedings o f , and f a i r ,

Report

Privilege,

which

protects

i m p a r t i a l , a n d a c c u r a t e news a c c o u n t s o f ,

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies o f t h e government [ ] "
14

should protect

i t . See

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 15 of 18

Doc. 19 a t 23; L a w t o n v . Ga. T e l e v i s i o n Co., 216 Ga. App. 768,
(Ga.

Ct.

App. 1 9 9 5 ) .

investigation,
existent

Given

that

there

was a l l e g e d l y

no

771

such

i t w o u l d be d i f f i c u l t t o a p p l y a p r i v i l e g e t o a non-

proceeding.

Furthermore,

actual

malice,

as d i s c u s s e d

f u r t h e r b e l o w a n d as e v i d e n c e d b y CNN's c o n t i n u e d p u b l i c a t i o n

about

an o f f i c i a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n when t h e AHCA h a d a f f i r m a t i v e l y s t a t e d t h a t
none e x i s t e d , g e n e r a l l y o v e r r u l e s t h e p r i v i l e g e .
at 771 ( a p p l y i n g p r i v i l e g e
malice"

existed).

Plaintiff,

See Lawton, 216 Ga.

i n p a r t because "no a l l e g a t i o n o f a c t u a l

Again

drawing

a l l inferences

he has met h i s b u r d e n o n t h e f a l s i t y

F l o r i d a ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r purposes

Consistent w i t h Georgia

of

o f CNN's r e p o r t s o n

of a motion t odismiss.

T h i s i s n o t t o say t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n o f f a l s i t y
one h e r e .

i n favor

i snot a close

l a w , h o w e v e r , when an a l l e g e d l y

d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t " i s c a p a b l e o f t w o m e a n i n g s , one o f w h i c h w o u l d
be l i b e l o u s a n d a c t i o n a b l e and t h e o t h e r n o t , i t i s f o r t h e j u r y [ a n d
n o t t h e j u d g e ] t o say, under
publication

a l l t h ecircumstances surrounding i t s

. . . w h i c h o f t h e t w o meanings w o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d t o i t

b y t h o s e t o whom i t i s a d d r e s s e d o r b y whom i t may be r e a d . "

Lucas,

289 Ga. App. a t 513.
C.

About P l a i n t i f f

"To s u s t a i n a n a c t i o n f o r l i b e l ,
w o r d s must r e f e r

t o some a s c e r t a i n e d

'[t]he

[allegedly]

or ascertainable

defamatory
p e r s o n , and

t h a t p e r s o n must be t h e p l a i n t i f f . ' " F i s k e v . S t o c k t o n , 171 Ga. App.
6 0 1 , 602 (Ga. C t . App. 1984) ( q u o t i n g L e d g e r - E n q u i r e r Co. v . Brown,
214 Ga. 422, 423 (Ga. 1 9 5 8 ) ) .

N e i t h e r p a r t y here d i s p u t e s t h a t t h e

v a r i o u s statements c o n t a i n e d i n t h e Complaint never mention
b y name.

Nevertheless, P l a i n t i f f

15

i s alleging

that

Plaintiff

the nature of

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 16 of 18

CNN'S n e g a t i v e r e p o r t i n g
him.

S t . M a r y ' s was s u f f i c i e n t

For purposes o f a motion t o d i s m i s s ,
Plaintiff

state,

t h e Court agrees.

and h i s p r o f e s s i o n as t h e CEO o f S t . Mary's,

responsible f o r

and f o r t h e h i r i n g o f t h e p e d i a t r i c s u r g e o n a t t h e

c e n t e r o f CNN's r e p o r t i n g
reporting

t o defame

a l l e g e s t h a t he was w e l l - k n o w n i n h i s c o m m u n i t y , h i s

i t s administration

its

about

about

[Compl., Doc. 1 a t 6 - 8 ] .

the mortality

rate

I n t h e course o f

a t S t . Mary's,

CNN

used

P l a i n t i f f ' s name and p i c t u r e numerous t i m e s , and r e f e r r e d t o h i m as
its

CEO.

CNN

also

f r e e l y admits i n i t s motion t o dismiss t h a t i t

r e p o r t e d t h e s i t u a t i o n a t S t . Mary's as " n o t t h e f a i l u r e

o f a n y one

i n d i v i d u a l [,] " b u t " t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e e n t i r e team a n d s y s t e m . " [Doc.
5-1 a t 1 5 ] .
for

I n f u r t h e r r e p o r t i n g t h e supposed

the hospital

audience

t o do t h e s e

t o l o o k beyond

"financial incentive

s u r g e r i e s [,] " CNN

the single

was

named p e d i a t r i c

directing i t s
surgeon

Mary's a n d c o n s i d e r t h e c u l p a b i l i t y o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

a t St.
[Compl.,

Doc. 1 a t 1 5 ] .
By t h e n naming P l a i n t i f f

as CEO

a n d u s i n g h i s p i c t u r e , CNN was

l i t e r a l l y making P l a i n t i f f t h e f a c e o f t h a t c u l p a b l e
CNN

even

sent

a

team

to

Plaintiff's

home

early

p r e s u m a b l y t o g e t a q u o t e , and l a t e r r a n a r e p o r t :
repeatedly

denied

requests f o r interviews,

C a r b o n e , t h e CEO o f S t . Mary's a t h i s home.
without

commenting."

[Doc. 14-1 a t 5 ] .

d e f a m a t i o n by innuendo.

administration.

CNN

one

morning,

" A f t e r S t . Mary's
approached

Davide

He s h u t t h e g a r a g e

I t i s permissible

door

t o plead

See S o u t h l a n d P u b l ' g Co. v . S e w e l l , 111 Ga.

App. 803, 809 (Ga. C t . App. 1965) ( f i n d i n g " d e f a m a t o r y p u b l i c a t i o n "
t o be a b o u t p l a i n t i f f
"and

was

'Sewell'

b e c a u s e he was c o - o w n e r o f t h e named g a r a g e ,

understood by t h e c i t i z e n s
affiliated

with

of Forsyth

t h a t b u s i n e s s , and . . .
16

County
he was

t o be t h e
therefore

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 17 of 18

identified

personally").

P l a i n t i f f , he has
D.

Drawing

all

inferences

s u f f i c i e n t l y pled the f i r s t

in

element of

favor

of

defamation.

With A c t u a l M a l i c e

Finally,

Georgia law

requires

t h a t P l a i n t i f f p r o v e CNN's f a u l t

"amounting t o a t l e a s t negligence" i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h defamation.
If

Plaintiff

i s a private figure--as

[Compl., Doc.

clear

convincing

Infinite

evidence"

E n e r g y , 310

that

Ga. App.

CNN

at

ordinary

"must p r o v e

"acted

358

initially

acted w i t h

I f P l a i n t i f f i s a p u b l i c f i g u r e , however, he

and

malice."

appears t o p l e a d

1 a t l ] - - h e need o n l y show t h a t CNN

negligence.
by

he

with

actual

( c i t i n g Mathis,

276

Ga. a t 20-21 ( 2 ) ) .
Plaintiff
because

he

is

cannot

c l e a r l y not

a

be

be

said

to

" ' h o u s e h o l d w o r d ' whose i d e a s and
with

great

Broad.,

interest.'" Id.

275

Plaintiff

Ga.

does

App.

701,

appear

to

" l i m i t e d purpose p u b l i c
Executive

Officer

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n was
a r e a and

a

actions

(citing

Riddle

703 (1)

(Ga.

2005)).

that

St.

Mary's

well-known t o the

1

at

Plaintiff

h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e he

he

should

"[t]hat
and

name

v.

6] .
is

a

has

The

Court

private

or

need n o t
limited

s u f f i c i e n t l y pled

publication
statement]

with
was

not.'"

"'knowledge

f a l s e or

with

Masson v.

New

that

reckless

be

Isles

considered

[he] was

the

decide
purpose

at

Chief

for

its

beyond"

this

public

stage

figure,

malice.

allegedly

disregard

a

West Palm Beach

of

Y o r k e r Magazine, I n c . ,
17

follows

actual malice i s defined
[the

a

Nevertheless,

i n the

actual

is

Golden

responsible

public

As a m a t t e r o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law,

f a l s e or

figure"

the p u b l i c i n f a c t

359

plead

public

" c e l e b r i t y " whose

f i g u r e " because

of

purpose

i n t h e m e d i c a l c o m m u n i t y i n t h e S t a t e o f F l o r i d a and

[Compl. , Doc.
whether

at

"general

defamatory

whether
501

as

U.S.

i t

was
496,

 Case 1:16-cv-01720-ODE Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 18 of 18

510

(1991)

279-80

(quoting

(1964)).

New Y o r k Times Co. v . S u l l i v a n ,

Plaintiff's

Complaint

i s replete

376 U.S. 254,

with

statements

t h a t S t . Mary's a n d o t h e r s were b r i n g i n g t o CNN's a t t e n t i o n t h e f a c t
that the very society

f r o m w h i c h i t was s u p p o s e d l y g e t t i n g i t s d a t a ,

t h e STS, was a t t h e same t i m e b e s t o w i n g u p o n S t . Mary's a t w o - s t a r
ranking given only

t o those programs w i t h

a mortality rate

t h e expected range r e l a t i v e t o t h e n a t i o n a l average"
a t 33-34] .
since

"within

[Compl., Doc. 1

T h i s f a c t s h o u l d have r a i s e d d o u b t s f o r CNN, p a r t i c u l a r l y

i t noted

i n i t s own June

9, 2015 a r t i c l e :

"Bottom l i n e : t o

c a l c u l a t e a m o r t a l i t y r a t e , y o u must know how many i n d e x o p e r a t i o n s
were done, a n d we h a v e no i d e a "

[ I d . a t 34] .

AHCA was a l l e g e d l y

CNN's a t t e n t i o n

errors

without

also

effect

drawing

[ I d . a t 31-32] .

allegations

sufficient

with

t o t h e accuracy

regard

malice."

Plaintiff

t o establish

that

As n o t e d above, t h e

The C o u r t

pled

reporting

finds

CNN was a c t i n g

of i t s reporting,

has s u f f i c i e n t l y

to its

recklessly

i.e., with

the third

these

"actual

element o f

defamation.
Therefore, drawing a l l inferences i n favor o f P l a i n t i f f ,
met t h e p l e a d i n g s t a n d a r d t o m a i n t a i n a c l a i m

he has

f o r d e f a m a t i o n under

Georgia law.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For t h e reasons s t a t e d

alternative
discovery

dismiss
pursuant

above, CNN's m o t i o n t o s t r i k e o r i n t h e

[Doc. 5] i s DENIED.
t o Georgia's

Plaintiff's

anti-SLAPP

statute

DISMISSED AS MOOT.
2017 .

SO ORDERED,

ORINDA D. EVANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18

motion f o r
[Doc. 9] i s