Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 74 Filed 11/02/10 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
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

(“WNL”), and White House Communications Inc. (“WCI”) (collectively referred to as


ul
“plaintiffs”), submits this reply in support of its cross motion to place Ex. 1 to their opposition to
eg

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,

Lies & Murder?, which is the primary subject of plaintiffs’ claims.


eR

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

PDF processed with CutePDF evaluation edition www.CutePDF.com


Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 74 Filed 11/02/10 Page 2 of 4

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

use as evidence and would not be available to third parties.

unnecessary. However, any additional instances or allegations of ghostwriting would be


appropriately adjudicated.” Couch v. Jabe, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35320, *1-3 n.1 (W.D. Va.
Apr. 8, 2010) (citations omitted).

-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

the Court to rebut them.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that their motion to file the book

under seal be granted.

et
Dated: November 2, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Richard J. Oparil

.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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs


eR
Th

-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