Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Parisi V Sinclair: 74 Plaintiff's Reply
Parisi V Sinclair: 74 Plaintiff's Reply
)
DANIEL PARISI, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
et
v. ) No. 1:10-cv-0897-RJL
)
LAWRENCE W. SINCLAIR a/k/a “Larry Sinclair”, )
.n
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
or
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CROSS MOTION TO PLACE EX. 1 IN
OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER SEAL
at
Plaintiffs, Daniel Parisi (“Parisi”), Whitehouse.com Inc., Whitehouse Network LLC
the motion for summary judgment of defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) under seal. Ex.
1 is a copy of Sinclair’s June 2009 book entitled Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex,
In his response, defendant, Lawrence W. Sinclair (“Sinclair”), did not state that he
opposed the cross motion.1 Instead, he re-argued his motion to strike. Given the evidentiary
Th
1
Plaintiffs note that Sinclair’s response appears to have been “ghostwritten” by legal
counsel or a person with legal training. One Court recently wrote that: “The court notes that
plaintiff states in a footnote that he ‘asked counsel for Prison Legal News to draft this motion on
his behalf. They are Steven Rosenfield and Jeffrey Fogel…. [Plaintiff] then revised counsels'
draft motion.’ Although plaintiff's footnote may have saved counsel from violating an ethical
duty of candor, ‘ghostwriting’ motions for a pro se plaintiff is contrary to the spirit of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the privilege of liberal construction afforded to pro se litigants….
For future reference, if an attorney wishes to notify the court of parallel proceedings after a pro
se party contacts him or her, counsel is encouraged to file a letter with the court instead of
drafting pleadings. Further inquiry by the undersigned into plaintiff's allegations is presently
nature of the book, there is no reason or basis to strike that evidence. Sinclair’s argument that
there are only approximately 30 pages at issue is incorrect. The complaint expressly alleges that
“Sinclair’s book is replete with false, defamatory and derogatory statements regarding Parisi and
the website, including without limitation, the following….” (Complaint ¶ 32). The issue of
et
whether a particular statement is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meeting is answered by
considering the fair and natural meaning given to it by reasonable persons of ordinary
.n
intelligence. See, e.g., Ward v. Zelikovsky, 643 A.2d 972, 978 (N.J. 1994); Romaine v. Kallinger,
537 A.2d 284, 288 (N.J. 1988). The defamatory words are not read in isolation but in context.
or
See, e.g., Ward, 643 A.2d at 980 (“The listener's reasonable interpretation, which will be based
at
in part on the context in which the statement appears, is the proper measure for whether the
statement is actionable.”) (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 566 comm. c); Romaine,
ul
537 A.2d at 288 (“In assessing the language, the court must view the publication as a whole and
consider particularly the context in which the statement appears.”). Thus, the book is relevant
eg
evidence.
Sinclair complains – incorrectly – that it was not a fair use under the copyright laws to
eR
file the book as evidence. See Den Hollander v. Swindells-Donovan, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
22309 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2010) (there was no copyright infringement resulting from submission
of six essays to the District Court as evidence). Sinclair’s purported concern can be fully
Th
addressed by placing Ex. 1 under seal. It would still be available to the Court and the parties to
-2-
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 74 Filed 11/02/10 Page 3 of 4
Sinclair’s other arguments are either incorrect or irrelevant and plaintiffs need not burden
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that their motion to file the book
et
Dated: November 2, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
.n
Richard J. Oparil (D.C. Bar No. 409723)
PATTON BOGGS LLP
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
or
(202) 457-6000
(202) 457-6315 (fax)
at Kevin M. Bell
PATTON BOGGS LLP
8484 Westpark Drive
McLean, VA 22102
ul
(703) 744-8000
(703) 744-8001 (fax)
eg
-3-
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 74 Filed 11/02/10 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 2, 2010, a copy of the foregoing was served on counsel
for the parties that have appeared in the case by the Court’s ECF system and on the following by
electronic mail:
et
Lawrence W. Sinclair
PO Box 9222
Chattanooga, TN 37412
.n
218-269-2274
larry@larrysinclair.org
or
at /s/ Richard J. Oparil
Richard J. Oparil (DC Bar No. 409723)
ul
eg
eR
Th