Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc. v. Katz
773 F. Supp. 2d 103
D.D.C.2011Background
- 60 Minutes aired a May 4, 2003 segment titled Terrorist Hunter focusing on Rita Katz and her US investigations of alleged terrorist financing.
- Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc. alleges the Broadcast defamed it by implying it knowingly engaged in money laundering to support terrorism, via the so‑called Saar Network and the 555 Grove Street nexus in Virginia and Georgia.
- Key figures include Katz, her association with SITE Institute, and the Georgia and Virginia entities alleged to be part of the money flow.
- Proceedings moved from Northern District of Georgia to the District of Columbia; discovery was stayed for years due to a Fifth Amendment assertion by a crucial witness, then resumed with dispositive motions.
- The court analyzes Georgia defamation law, the First Amendment defense for a broadcast, and choice‑of‑law issues in a federal diversity framework, ultimately granting summary judgment for defendants on First Amendment grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Broadcast is capable of defamatory meaning under Georgia law | Mar-Jac is 'of and concerning' and the Broadcast conveyed knowledgeably defaming it. | Statement is not reasonably capable of defamatory meaning; ambiguity prevents a finding of defamation. | Yes, capable of defamation exists; but protected by First Amendment; no liability |
| Whether First Amendment protection applies to the Broadcast | Statements conveyed a factual assertion about money laundering by Mar-Jac. | Statements are hyperbolic, speculative and not verifiably factual; constitutionally protected opinion. | Protected by First Amendment; no liability |
| Choice of law and governing law for defamation | Georgia law governs defamation claims. | Georgia and DC law align; transfer under 1404(a) requires applying transferor state's law; GA law ultimately applies. | Georgia law applies; but First Amendment analysis controls outcome |
| Remaining claims after defamation dismissal | Other theories (negligence, product disparagement, vicarious liability, punitive damages) survive with defamation framing. | Without defamation, ancillary claims fail; derivative elements dismissed. | All remaining counts dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (pushes the factual basis requirement for statements of opinion)
- White v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F.2d 512 (D.C.Cir. 1990) (defamation by implication and factual verifiability)
- Tavoulareas v. Piro, 817 F.2d 762 (D.C.Cir. 1987) (contextual approach to defamation meaning in publications)
- Mead v. True Citizen, Inc., 417 S.E.2d 16 (Ga.App. 1992) (defamation's threshold question—whether meaning is defaming a jury question)
- Cox Enters. v. Bakin, 426 S.E.2d 651 (Ga.App. 1992) (reading the publication in context for defamation analysis)