Dennis Montgomery v. James Risen, 16-7096

Dennis Montgomery, a software developer, sued author James Risen and publishers for defamation over statements in Risen’s book Pay Any Price describing Montgomery’s software as a hoax that had been sold to U.S. intelligence and used to justify high‑level counterterrorism responses.
Risen’s Chapter recounts government officials relying on Montgomery’s software (e.g., purportedly detecting codes in Al Jazeera broadcasts) which led to flight groundings in December 2003 and other dramatic responses, and later being deemed an illusion.
The district court ordered Montgomery to produce the software or otherwise substantiate its functionality; Montgomery largely failed to comply with discovery orders and produced no detailed technical evidence.
Montgomery’s own testimony consisted of conclusory assertions that the software worked and predicted incidents; he did not submit demonstrative evidence, detailed affidavits, or corroborating witness statements.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding Montgomery failed to meet his burden to show falsity for statements on matters of public concern; the D.C. Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Montgomery put falsity of factual statements at issue	Montgomery claimed the software worked and thus Risen’s descriptions of it as a hoax were false	Risen argued Montgomery produced no admissible evidence to dispute the book’s factual assertions	Held: Montgomery failed to produce evidence creating a triable issue on falsity; summary judgment for defendants
Whether Montgomery could avoid production because software was classified	Montgomery suggested classification prevented production and thus he should not bear the burden	Defendants argued relevance and that Montgomery failed to seek in‑camera review or to provide access instructions; FBI offered to facilitate access	Held: Court accepted that classification was not established or litigated; Montgomery failed to pursue available means to permit review or substitute proof
Whether First Amendment standards (public-figure/actual malice) barred recovery	Montgomery disputed characterization but did not meaningfully contest public-figure status or actual malice on the record	Defendants argued statements concerned public matters and, absent proof of falsity, constitutional protections apply; some statements were opinion/hyperbole	Held: Court did not need to decide public-figure/actual malice because Montgomery failed Hepps falsity requirement; some challenged statements were nonactionable opinion

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (opinion vs. fact in defamation law)
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (plaintiff must prove falsity for matters of public concern)
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (public-figure standards and actual malice principle)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (definition of genuine dispute of material fact)