Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state viable cause of action plaintiff’s defamation action, alleging that it incurred reputational harm from article published in American Bar Association law journal. While plaintiffs argued that four statements contained in article were defamatory per se because they falsely implied that its forensic experts do not meet published professional training standards for forensic examiners, fair reading of article indicated that subject statements were expressions of author’s opinions on how judges should attend to their gate-keeping obligations under Daubert that were protected under First Amendment and were not objectively verifiable facts. As such, plaintiff appropriate avenue for expressing contrary point of view was through rebuttal article and not defamation lawsuit. Also, plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim for deceptive advertising was also not viable, where article only expressed author’s opinion.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Defamation