1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 13-20610-CIV-ALTONAGA/Simonton

LARRY E. KLAYMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,

Defendant.
_____________________________/

JOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION

Pursuant to this Courts Order dated July 19, 2013, the parties submit the following Joint
Pre-Trial Stipulation:
(1) A short concise statement of the case by each party in the action.
(a) Plaintiffs Statement
Plaintiff Larry Klayman brought this lawsuit against Defendant Judicial Watch for defamation,
defamation by implication, tortious interference with current and prospective professional and
business opportunities, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The action arises out
of statements made by Constance Ruffley, an employee of Judicial Watch, which were made in
the scope of her employment as office administrator, which were ordered to be made or were
ratified by Judicial Watch, and which were intended to be published to donors that were to fund
lawsuits filed in Florida, elsewhere and potentially elsewhere, over the eligibility of a political
candidate to run for office and others, which misleadingly and falsely represented that Klayman
had been convicted of a crime. Specifically the misleading and false statements, which
constitutes libel or defamation per se, defamation, defamation by implication, and which caused
the other pleaded torts, were intended to be published widely in Florida, domestically and
internationally on a leading eligibility website owned and operated by Orly Taitz. The website is
called the Worlds Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site. The false and misleading
statements were . . . that donors should know about litigation in Ohio, where he was convicted
just recentlty [sic] of not paying large amount in child support. Ms. Ruffley and Judicial Watch
provided other actionable information to Taitz that was subsequently published.
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 1 of 7

PDFaid.Com
#1 Pdf Solutions

2
Plaintiff has never been convicted of any crime, neither in Ohio nor anywhere else, and nowhere
in the public record did it so indicate that he was, despite Defendants misleading or false
statements that all the information was available publicly. In fact, the court docket entries,
available online for the whole world to see, indicated the opposite; that Plaintiff was never
convicted.
The evidence will prove that Judicial Watch long sought to harm Plaintiff, and acted with malice
in having Constance Ruffley spread misleading and false information about Plaintiff and
directing Taitz to make it clear that donors should know about this false information about
Plaintiff. This was all done to harm the reputation, livelihood and to inflict emotional distress on
Plaintiff, as Defendant sees Plaintiff as a competitor and has had a contentious relationship with
him since Plaintiff left Judicial Watch in 2003 to run for the U.S. Senate in Florida.
Because of Defendant Judicial Watchs actions, Plaintiff was harmed and damaged in areas
including but not limited to lost earnings and capacity, lost career and business opportunities,
litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, ostracization, humiliation, hurt
feelings, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish and distress and other
compensatory and actual damages, as well as loss of reputation in his trade and profession, and
punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.
(b) Defendants Statement
Defendant denies Plaintiffs claims.
The evidence will show that at the time of the alleged statement: (A) Klayman was under
indictment by an Ohio court for failure to pay child support; (B) Klayman had been found in
contempt of court three times for failure to pay child support; and (C) a capias had been issued
based on Klaymans failure to pay child support.
Defendant denies that it defamed plaintiff. Defendant denies that it authorized or instructed
Constance Ruffley to make any defamatory comments regarding Klayman. Defendant believes
the evidence will show that Connie Ruffley did not state that Plaintiff had been convicted of a
crime for not paying a large amount of child support with regard to his children as alleged by
plaintiff. Defendant did not publish such a comment. Defendant did not authorize or reasonably
foresee the publication of such a comment on Orly Taitzs website.
If the statement was made, as alleged by plaintiff, the statement was substantially true and not
made with actual malice. The evidence will show that defendant did not cause any damage or
loss to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has sued defendant multiple times and it is plaintiff who is seeking
to harm defendant, not defendant seeking to harm plaintiff. Furthermore, plaintiff has a history
of disagreements and confrontations with courts and judges. He prides himself on confronting
establishments. He made a conscious decision to forgo paying child support. Defendant asserts
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 2 of 7

3
that Klayman sustained no reputational damage or monetary losses. Defendant is not liable for
defamation or defamation by implication.
Based on the single publication/single action rule, defendant is not liable for the claims of
tortious interference with a contract or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant
also denies plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with a contract because it had no knowledge
of any contract and defendant did not tortuously interfere with a contract. Furthermore, the
contract was performed. Defendant denies the intentional infliction of emotion distress claim
because defendant did not engage in extreme or outrageous conduct and plaintiff did not sustain
severe emotional distress.
(2) The basis of federal jurisdiction.
The basis for federal jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1332. It is a civil
action between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy herein exceeds the sum
or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
(3) The pleadings raising the issues.
The pleadings at issue are the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [D.E. 5] and the Defendants
Answer and Affirmative Defenses [D.E. 37]. Plaintiff notes that the following pleadings have
also been filed: Plaintiffs Affidavit in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary
Judgment and all accompanying attachments, as well as the Affidavits of Orly Taitz and Larry
Klayman, which confirm the statements made to Ms. Taitz by Defendant Judicial Watch through
Constance Ruffley, as well as the website postings that were attached to the Affidavits of Orly
Taitz and Larry Klayman, the Affidavit of Constance Ruffley, and other relevant pleadings and
the depositions in transcribed and DVD format of Larry Klayman, Constance Ruffley, Thomas J.
Fitton, Paul J. Orfanedes and Christopher Farrell, as well as relevant documents. Defendant
notes that its Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed along with the accompanying
evidence and exhibits.
(4) A list of all undisposed of motions or other matters requiring action by the Court.
Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E. 83], which was filed on February 28, 2014 is
pending. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment is fatally flawed and
should be denied as the facts at issue must be decided by a jury, at a minimum, and that if
summary judgment were warranted at this phase, it would be in favor of Plaintiff, as the alleged
defamation was libel per se and that the other tortious claims are also in Plaintiffs favor.
Defendant continues to assert that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. By contributing to this joint statement, Defendant is not waiving
any of its arguments or agreeing that issues of fact remain for trial. Defendant is participating in
this joint statement to comply with this Courts order and the applicable rules of civil procedure.
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 3 of 7

4
(5) A concise statement of uncontested facts which will require no proof at trial, with
reservations, if any.
The parties have not stipulated to facts.
(6) A statement in reasonable detail of issues of fact which remain to be litigated at trial.
Plaintiff asserts four claims defamation, defamation by implication, tortious interference with a
contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
With respect to all claims, there are the following issues of fact:
Whether defendant published the alleged defamatory statements.
Whether defendant is liable for the publication of the alleged defamatory statement on as
published to Orly Taitz and then published on Orly Taitzs website.
Whether the alleged defamatory statement is substantially true.
Whether plaintiff is a public figure.
Whether the defendants alleged published statements are libel per se.
Whether the defendant acted with actual malice.
Whether the plaintiff is required to prove actual malice.
Whether the alleged defamatory statement caused damage.
With respect to the tortious interference with a contract claim, there is the following additional
issue of fact:
Whether defendant was aware of the contract or professional relationships and
prospective professional relationships.
Whether defendant caused the breach or disruption of the contract or professional
relationships.
Whether the tortious interference caused damage.
With respect to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, there are the following
additional issues of fact:
Whether the defendants conduct was intentional or reckless.
Whether the defendants conduct was outrageous.
Whether the defendants conduct caused severe emotional distress.
Whether the alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress caused damage.
(7) A concise statement of issues of law on which there is agreement.
Per this Courts Order of July 19, 2013, the parties are submitting jury instructions outlining the
applicable law and the extent to which the parties are in agreement.
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 4 of 7

5
(8) A concise statement of issues of law which remain for determination by the Court.
Plaintiff submits that it has shown that summary judgment is not warranted as a matter of fact
and law in his opposition to the Defendants motion for summary judgment and other pleadings.
Plaintiff submits that the issues of fact must go to the jury to decide and that summary judgment
as a matter of law is inappropriate given the facts of this case as applied to the law. Plaintiff
further states that he is not required to prove actual malice because the defamatory statements
constitute defamation per se.
Defendant submits that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for the reasons set forth in its
Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant identifies the following issues of law:
Whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the alleged
statement was substantially true.
Whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff lacks
evidence that the alleged statement was published by Defendant.
Whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff lacks
evidence that defendant authorized the publication of the alleged statement of Orly Taitz
website or that the publication was reasonably foreseeable.
Whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff lacks
evidence of actual malice.
Whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on remaining claims
because of the single publication/single action rule.
Whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the intentional infliction
of emotional distress claim because plaintiff lacks evidence of intentional, extreme or
outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress.
Whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the tortious inference
with a contract claim because plaintiff lacks evidence that Defendant knew about the
contract or professional relationship or intentionally caused the breach or disruption of
the professional relationship.
Whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the tortious inference
with a contract claim because plaintiff lacks evidence of breach or disruption of the
contract or professional relationship.
Whether plaintiffs claims are barred by qualified privilege.
(9) Estimated trial time.
Plaintiff believes that trial will require a minimum of five days and possibly as much as seven
days. Defendant believes that trial should be completed in three days or less.


Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 5 of 7

6
(10) Where attorneys fees may be awarded to the prevailing party, an estimate of each
party as to the maximum amount properly allowable.
Not applicable.


Dated: April 7, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,


/s/ Larry Klayman
LARRY KLAYMAN
2520 Coral Way, Suite 2027
Miami, FL 33145
(310) 595-0800
leklayman@gmail.com

Plaintiff Pro Se


SCHWED KAHLE & KRESS, P.A.
11410 North Jog Road, Suite 100
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
Telephone: (561) 694-0070
Facsimile: (561) 694-0057

/s/ Douglas J. Kress
(signed with permission)
Douglas J. Kress, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 0061146
Email: dkress@schwedpa.com

Attorneys for Defendant Judicial
Watch, Inc.

Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 6 of 7

7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 7, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF filing system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this date on all counsel of record or pro se parties on the
attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic
Filing generated by the CM/ECF system or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or
parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Larry Klayman
LARRY KLAYMAN
Plaintiff Pro Se


SERVICE LIST

Douglas James Kress
Schwed Kahle & Jenks, P.A.
11410 North Jog Road
Suite 100
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
561-694-0070
Fax: 561-694-0057
Email: dkress@schwedpa.com

VIA CM/ECF


Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 7 of 7