There are reports from the ABA Journal online and the National Law Journal (the link is in the ABA story) of a plaintiff who sued a law blogger, Professor Shaun Martin of the University of San Diego, for defamation resulting from statements about her case on his blog. Professor Martin opined on some of the details in the case(s) of Melanie Welch in her actions against the school where she worked and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System. I’m not going to go into detail here about those cases. The information is in the stories online and in the appellate opinion that affirmed the dismissal of her defamation suit on anti-SLAPP grounds.
The gist, if I read the opinion correctly, is that Professor Martin offered opinions about the evidence presented in the case, the technical correctness of the ultimate decisions, and suggested to his readers to determine for themselves whether the results were justice:
[M]aybe all of this is complete justice. But maybe not. Depends profoundly upon your point of view.” Op. at p 7.
That was one of the statements alleged to be defamatory. The Court found that opinion is not actionable under defamation law and the plaintiff was unable to carry her burden under the anti-SLAPP burden-shifting framework. Readers may be wondering why I’m not putting in more detail on the facts of the case. I’ll just say that readers should read the article links and opinion and draw their own conclusions. I’ll just say as someone who writes regularly writes about cases and their outcomes, I believe the result to be a correct one. The text of the document is linked in the ABA Journal article above, and for convenience, here. We’ll see if the California Supreme Court takes up the case if presented to it.