Montgomery v. Risen
875 F.3d 709 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a defamation case concerning a matter of public interest, the First Amendment requires the plaintiff to bear the burden of proving the falsity of the allegedly defamatory statements. A plaintiff's failure to produce any evidence demonstrating falsity is fatal to the claim at the summary judgment stage.
Facts:
- Dennis Montgomery, a software developer, created a program he claimed could detect hidden data and messages in video broadcasts.
- Montgomery successfully marketed this software to U.S. government agencies, including the Pentagon and the CIA, for counter-terrorism purposes.
- He persuaded the CIA that the software could uncover hidden al Qaeda codes in Al Jazeera television broadcasts, purportedly identifying future targets.
- In December 2003, intelligence allegedly derived from Montgomery's software prompted the CIA Director to warn President George W. Bush of an imminent terrorist threat.
- As a result of this intelligence, the U.S. government grounded a series of international commercial flights around the Christmas holiday.
- Author James Risen published a book, 'Pay Any Price,' which featured a chapter characterizing Montgomery's software as an 'elaborate and dangerous hoax' and Montgomery himself as a 'con artist.'
Procedural Posture:
- Dennis Montgomery sued James Risen and his publishers for defamation and other torts in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- During discovery, the district court ordered Montgomery to produce his software, but he failed to comply.
- The defendants (Risen et al.) filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Montgomery had failed to carry his burden of proving the falsity of the statements.
- Montgomery, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defamation plaintiff's failure to produce any evidence to prove the falsity of allegedly defamatory statements, which concern a matter of public interest, warrant summary judgment for the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Pillard, Circuit Judge
Yes. A defamation plaintiff's failure to produce evidence of falsity concerning a matter of public interest is fatal to their claim at the summary judgment stage. Under the First Amendment precedent established in Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps, a plaintiff suing for defamation over statements on a matter of public concern bears the affirmative burden of proving that the statements are false. Here, Risen’s chapter on government waste and national security is undoubtedly a matter of public concern. Therefore, to survive summary judgment, Montgomery was required to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that Risen's statements about the software's dysfunction were false. Montgomery failed to meet this burden. Despite a court order, he never produced the software or any other corroborating evidence of its functionality. His own testimony, consisting of conclusory assertions that the software 'does work,' is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Because Montgomery failed to carry his essential burden of proving falsity, summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate, and the court did not need to reach the question of whether Montgomery was a public figure or if Risen acted with actual malice.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the constitutional burden of proof placed on plaintiffs in defamation cases involving matters of public concern, as established in Hepps. It demonstrates that courts will not hesitate to grant summary judgment against plaintiffs who fail to provide concrete evidence of falsity, thereby protecting journalists and authors from protracted litigation based on unsubstantiated claims. The case serves as a practical lesson on the critical importance of discovery compliance, showing that a plaintiff's refusal to produce key evidence can single-handedly doom their case. By refusing to allow the plaintiff to proceed based on conclusory self-serving statements, the court reinforces a high evidentiary bar that protects robust public debate and reporting on governmental affairs.
Unlock the full brief for Montgomery v. Risen