DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00800.png

Case 18-2868, Document 279, 08/09/2019, 2628231, Page18 of 37 is a mistake. Immuno AG is the seminal case prescribing the analysis to be used in a summary- judgment proceeding for assessing whether under the New York Constitution a statement is absolutely protected as opinion. Instead of addressing the four factors, plaintiff simply relies on this Court’s 12(b)(6) order. The Court’s order does not control. In deciding the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court assumed the complaint’s allegations were true and drew all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. In this proceeding, plaintiff is not entitled either to the assumption or the inferences. The opinion-versus-fact question will be controlled by the Rule 56 record. Relying on the Court’s order, plaintiff argues that the question whether the three allegedly defamatory sentences are opinion or fact is controlled by Davis v. Boeheim, 22 N.E.3d 999 (N.Y. 2014), and Green v. Cosby, 138 F. Supp. 3d 114 (D. Mass. 2015). See Resp. 38. Davis was an appeal from a 12(b)(6) dismissal. This procedural posture was critical to its decision: [D]efendants argue that because a reader could interpret the statement as pure opinion, the statement is as a consequence, nonactionable and was properly dismissed [pursuant to a pre-answer motion]. However, on a motion to dismiss we consider whether any reading of the complaint supports the defamation claim. Thus, although it may well be that the challenged statements are subject to defendants’ interpretation, the motion to dismiss must be denied if the communication at issue, taking the words in their ordinary meaning and in context, is also susceptible to a defamatory connotation. We find this complaint to meet this minimum pleading requirement. Davis, 22 N.E.3d at 1006-07 (internal quotations, brackets, ellipsis and citations omitted). Green was a decision on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The case was decided under California and Florida defamation law. See 138 F. Supp. 3d at 124, 130, 136-37. The court made it clear the 12(b)(6) procedural posture was critical to its decision: “At this stage of the litigation, the court’s concern is whether any fact contained in or implied by an allegedly defamatory statement is susceptible to being proved true or false; if so capable, Defendant cannot avoid application of defamation law by claiming the statement expresses only opinion.” /d. at 130. 13