Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Elon's lawyers just filed a motion for "Judgement as a Matter of Law",
This is quite a bombshell filing IMHO, making the following arguments, now supported by the evidence provided via trial testimony:
They also raised the "unclean hands" argument I mentioned in previous comments:
Note that even if the judge rejects or ignores this motion, (to me) these look like a powerful argument on appeal: if the judge should have dismissed the lawsuit due to unclean hands then regardless of how the jury decides any decision against Elon would be reversed.
This is quite a bombshell filing IMHO, making the following arguments, now supported by the evidence provided via trial testimony:
- "Mr. Unsworth Failed To Prove He Is Entitled To Assumed Or Punitive Damages."
- "Mr. Unsworth Failed To Prove He Is Entitled To Actual Damages."
- "The Record Is Insufficient To Support A Finding That Mr. Musk Is Liable For Defaming Mr. Unsworth:
- First, no reasonable juror could determine that Mr. Musk’s July 15 tweets are statements of fact. Statements of opinion are not actionable as defamation, and are protected by the First Amendment.
- Second, no reasonable juror could find that the “audience reasonably understood the statements were about” Mr. Unsworth.
- Third, no reasonable jury could find that Mr. Musk’s statement was reasonably susceptible to a defamatory meaning. “California courts in libel cases have emphasized that the publication is to be measured... by the natural and probable effect upon the mind of the average reader.”
- Fourth, Mr. Unsworth has not met his burden of proving that any statement of fact Mr. Musk made was false.
- “When the speech involves a matter of public concern, a private-figure plaintiff has the burden of proving the falsity of the defamation.”
- Mr. Unsworth is not a credible witness, and even if his vague denial, (12/04/19 P.M., 19:2-5 (Unsworth)), of the alleged pedophilia accusation is not sufficient as a matter of law to prove Mr. Musk’s statement was false. “To accept such a colorless denial as sufficient proof would effectively shift plaintiffs’ burden of establishing falsity ...”
- Fifth, no reasonable juror could conclude that Mr. Musk failed to meet the standard of care. Although reasonable care is an objective standard, what reasonable care means in a particular circumstance is context-dependent. ... (“The allegedly defamatory statement in this case was made on an internet forum where people typically solicit and express opinions, generally using pseudonyms. The statement was also clearly ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ or a ‘vigorous epithet,’ particularly when viewed in the context of the heated argument—replete with name-calling[.]”). Here, Twitter is simply not a forum in which individuals use the same level of care they would in other circumstances.
They also raised the "unclean hands" argument I mentioned in previous comments:
Judgment as a Matter of Law – #149 in Vernon Unsworth v. Elon Musk (C.D. Cal., 2:18-cv-08048) – CourtListener.com
Based on the evidence, no reasonable juror could conclude that Mr. Unsworth did not have unclean hands with regard to the Twitter posts that form the basis of this defamation action. Mr. Musk’s tweets were a direct response to Mr. Unsworth’s unprovoked attack on CNN. (12/03/19 Tr. 72:8-11 (Musk).) Mr. Unsworth’s gratuitous statements that Mr. Musk’s rescue submarine was a PR stunt, which insinuated that Mr. Musk did not care about the trapped Thai children, and that Mr. Musk should stick his submarine where it hurts, therefore “occurred in the same transaction that forms the subject of this litigation,” which“is enough to trigger application of the unclean hands doctrine.” Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp., 10 Cal App. 4th 612, 623 (1992). And Mr. Unsworth’s comments were unfair and inequitable. See, e.g., Kendall-Jackson Winery, 76 Cal. App. 4th 970, 979 (1999) (“Not every wrongful act constitutes unclean hands. But, the misconduct need not be a crime or an actionable tort. Any conduct that violates conscience, or good faith, or other equitable standards of conduct is sufficient cause to invoke the doctrine.”).
Because unclean hands bars Mr. Unsworth’s defamation claim, judgment should be granted in favor of Mr. Musk as a matter of law.
Based on the evidence, no reasonable juror could conclude that Mr. Unsworth did not have unclean hands with regard to the Twitter posts that form the basis of this defamation action. Mr. Musk’s tweets were a direct response to Mr. Unsworth’s unprovoked attack on CNN. (12/03/19 Tr. 72:8-11 (Musk).) Mr. Unsworth’s gratuitous statements that Mr. Musk’s rescue submarine was a PR stunt, which insinuated that Mr. Musk did not care about the trapped Thai children, and that Mr. Musk should stick his submarine where it hurts, therefore “occurred in the same transaction that forms the subject of this litigation,” which“is enough to trigger application of the unclean hands doctrine.” Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp., 10 Cal App. 4th 612, 623 (1992). And Mr. Unsworth’s comments were unfair and inequitable. See, e.g., Kendall-Jackson Winery, 76 Cal. App. 4th 970, 979 (1999) (“Not every wrongful act constitutes unclean hands. But, the misconduct need not be a crime or an actionable tort. Any conduct that violates conscience, or good faith, or other equitable standards of conduct is sufficient cause to invoke the doctrine.”).
Because unclean hands bars Mr. Unsworth’s defamation claim, judgment should be granted in favor of Mr. Musk as a matter of law.
Note that even if the judge rejects or ignores this motion, (to me) these look like a powerful argument on appeal: if the judge should have dismissed the lawsuit due to unclean hands then regardless of how the jury decides any decision against Elon would be reversed.
