Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Washington Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.

Defendant's Attorney: Richard Wayne Driscoll

Description: Washington, DC: Personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a defamation theory.

The complaint alleged that Roger Stone, during an interview on
InfoWars, a website, stated: “He [Klayman] was ousted at Judicial Watch. Ask Tom Fitton [the
current president of Judicial Watch] why he left. He left because of a sexual harassment complaint.”
Klayman alleged, “[o]n information and belief,” that Fitton gave this information to Stone while they
were working together, that Fitton expected Stone to publish it, and that the information was false
and defamatory.

Klayman principally rests on his allegation that Stone and Fitton were working together
before the InfoWars broadcast. Klayman maintains that it follows from this allegation that when
Stone said “Ask Tom Fitton” he was referring to information he received from Fitton about the
reason for Klayman’s departure from Judicial Watch sixteen years earlier, in 2003.

For one thing the complaint is devoid of any credible allegation that Stone and Fitton worked
together, or were in contact, or even knew each other before Stone’s January 18, 2019 appearance
on InfoWars. See Hourani, 796 F.3d at 16. According to Klayman’s complaint, Stone and Fitton
worked together on a complaint relating to the FBI’s search of Stone’s home and Stone’s indictment.
The problem for Klayman is that the FBI search took place after Stone’s InfoWars interview, a fact
shown by public records of which the district court properly took judicial notice.1
On the other hand, it is plausible that Stone got his information about Klayman’s departure
from public sources. Klayman’s 2003 departure from Judicial Watch became the subject of more
than fifteen years of litigation, most notably culminating in a thirteen-day jury trial in the district
court, where “[t]he primary factual issue was the reason for Klayman’s departure [from Judicial
Watch].” Klayman v. Jud. Watch, Inc., 6 F.4th 1301, 1307, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142
S. Ct. 2731 (2022), reh’g denied, 2022 WL 3021506 (U.S. Aug. 1, 2022). As recounted in our
opinion affirming the $2.3 million verdict against Klayman, the jury heard evidence that while
Klayman was at Judicial Watch, he physically abused his then-wife, see id.; that he was pursuing a
romantic relationship with a Judicial Watch employee, id. at 1307; that his wife had filed a complaint
for divorce, id.; and that Fitton, upon learning of these matters, told Klayman to resign. Id. There
is no need to determine whether this evidence could be construed as “sexual harassment.” The
important point is that a trial involving Klayman took place, and the jury returned its verdict against
Klayman, all before Stone’s statement on InfoWars.

Outcome: Dismissal affirmed on appeal.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: