'The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits,' said DC Superior Court Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene in her latest procedural ruling in the defamation case of Michael Mann v. National Review, et al. 'The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that 'actual malice' is present in the [National Review's] conduct.' Graphic: DC Superior Court

30 August 2013 (Climate Science Watch) – “The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits,” said DC Superior Court Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene in her latest procedural ruling in the defamation case of Michael Mann v. National Review, et al. “The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that ‘actual malice’ is present in the [National Review’s] conduct.” On August 30 the Court denied the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s July 19 order, which had affirmed Prof. Mann’s right to proceed in his defamation lawsuit. The text of the August 30 Court Order is here in PDF. Some excerpts from the Court Order denying Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration:

Defamation … The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. As the Court stated in its previous Order, the NR Defendants’ reference to Plaintiff “as the man behind the fraudulent climate change ‘hockey stick’ graph” was essentially an allegation of fraud by Plaintiff. … The Court clearly recognizes that some members involved in the climate-change discussions and debates employ harsh words. The NR Defendants are reputed to use this manner of speech; however there is a line between rhetorical hyperbole and defamation. In this case, the evidence before the Court demonstrates that something more than mere rhetorical hyperbole is, at least at this stage present. Accusations of fraud, especially where such accusations are made frequently through the continuous usage of words such as “whitewashed,” “intellectually bogus,” “ringmaster of the tree-ring circus” and “cover-up” amount to more than rhetorical hyperbole. … The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that “actual malice” is present in the NR Defendants’ conduct. [more]

Judge denies National Review’s Motion to Reconsider ruling in Michael Mann’s defamation case