Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
From Apelbaum v. Lambert, decided Friday by Judge Robert White (E.D. Mich.):
Yaacov Apelbaum and his cybersecurity firm, XRVision, Ltd. (Plaintiffs), commenced this diversity breach of contract and defamation action against attorney Stephanie Lynn Lambert [the case caption calls her Stefanie Lynn Lambert], her law office {collectively referred to as the Lambert Defendants}, and Bill Bachenberg, after the parties allegedly contracted for Plaintiffs to investigate potential fraud during the 2020 general election….
uncertain
Plaintiffs → decide → election
Following the 2020 election, the Lambert Defendants, with financial assistance and partial direction from Bachenberg, promoted various claims of election fraud, including through lawsuits challenging election results.
uncertain
Defendants → follow → results
Pursuant to these efforts, the Lambert Defendants pursued various election fraud investigations, and they hired Plaintiffs to conduct forensic analyses of election results and/or procedures in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
asserted
they → pursue → Michigan
As particularly relevant here, the parties in March 2022 "entered into an agreement for Plaintiffs to perform a forensic analysis of Fulton County, Pennsylvania's elections systems, in exchange for $200,000."
asserted
Plaintiffs → enter → 200,000
The parties later expanded the scope of Plaintiffs' analysis "for an additional fee of $350,000."
asserted
parties → expand → 350,000
Plaintiffs allegedly performed their obligations of this agreement, but after they found and reported no evidence of election fraud in June 2022, Defendants never paid them as agreed.
uncertain
Defendants → perform → them
Further, the Lambert Defendants also allegedly started a defamation campaign against Plaintiffs around August 2022 to dissuade the Pennsylvania Senate, among others, from doing business with Plaintiffs.
uncertain
Defendants → start → Plaintiffs
According to Plaintiffs, they had at the time finalized negotiations with the Pennsylvania Senate to perform a forensic analysis of the whole state's election system, but Lambert Defendants' conduct caused the Pennsylvania Senate to terminate this relationship….
uncertain
Senate → accord → relationship
The court allowed plaintiffs' defamation claims against the Lambert defendants to go forward (because of Bachenberg's settlement agreement with the parties, the claims against Bachenberg weren't considered).
uncertain
claims → allow → Bachenberg
Lambert … falsely stated that the Plaintiffs had conflicts of interest with her clients and/or her firm, that she would sue the Plaintiffs if they were to be engaged in these relationships, and implicitly that she would take legal action against the relationships themselves if they were to hire Plaintiffs.
asserted
they → state → Plaintiffs
To wit: "Your office will receive a formal letter from my office today.
asserted
office → receive → office
Yaacov Apelbaum has a conflict of interest.
asserted
Apelbaum → have → interest
He was hired by Fulton County.
asserted
He → hire → County
He is bound by privilege.
asserted
He → bind → privilege
His firm will be sued if he performs any analysis on Fulton County data for the Senate."
asserted
he → sue → Senate
…
Lambert … also indicated, in written and verbal communications with representatives of the Pennsylvania Senate, the Wisconsin State Legislature, and the Arizona Senate, that the Plaintiffs were:
- incompetent.
- secretly working as malicious operatives of the federal government; and
- entirely lacking any ability in the fields of cybersecurity and forensic analysis.
asserted
Plaintiffs → indicate → cybersecurity
And the court reasoned that the claims could go ahead, based on the facts as plaintiffs plausibly alleged them to be:
uncertain
them → reason → facts
First, the statement that Plaintiffs were legally conflicted from performing any analysis of Fulton County election data could surely deter—and allegedly did so here with respect to the abandoned negotiations with the Pennsylvania Senate—third parties from hiring Plaintiffs for such services, particularly with the included warning of legal action.
uncertain
Plaintiffs → perform → action
Construing the complaint in Plaintiffs' favor, it is reasonable to infer, largely as a matter of common sense, that a third party would not want to hire Plaintiffs for services for which they would be subject to suit because of or otherwise limited by a conflict of interest.
asserted
they → construe → interest
The statement that Plaintiffs "secretly work[ ]" as "malicious operatives" also sufficiently impugns their honesty and integrity such that a third party would certainly hesitate to associate with them.
asserted
party → work → them
And average people could reasonably construe a lack of these facilities as making Plaintiffs unfit to perform the sensitive cybersecurity and forensic auditing services they offer.
uncertain
they → construe → services
Likewise, the statements that Plaintiffs are "incompetent" and "entirely lacking any ability in … cybersecurity and forensic analysis" without a doubt adversely relate to Plaintiffs' conduct in their business or profession.
asserted
Plaintiffs → lack → business
Further, the Court must accept as true at this stage that the statements "were deliberately made to persuade the Pennsylvania Senate against using Plaintiffs' forensic services."
asserted
statements → accept → services
Next, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law at this early stage that any of these statements constitute nonactionable pure opinion.
asserted
any → conclude → opinion
To the extent the Lambert Defendants couch the conflict-of-interest statement as protected legal opinion, they do not substantively explain how it (or any of the other allegedly defamatory statements) could not be objectively verified.
uncertain
it → couch → statements
Accepting the allegations as true, however, whether Plaintiffs were conflicted as a matter of law or contract, or secretly and maliciously worked as federal operatives, are objectively verifiable facts.
asserted
were → accept → operatives
Both alleged defamatory statements were presented as straightforward expressions of fact, not as subjective beliefs, and they can be verified by the records concerning Plaintiffs' prior work involving Fulton County and the federal government.
asserted
they → present → County
And to the extent the statements concerning Plaintiffs' professional capabilities involve a greater potential for subjectivity, these also were made as straightforward expressions of fact rather than mere belief.
asserted
these → concern → belief
Further, all the alleged statements at this stage constitute at most mixed opinion because they each imply knowledge of undisclosed facts privy to the Lambert Defendants.
asserted
they → allege → Defendants
Critically, it can be reasonably inferred that Lambert Defendants made each allegedly defamatory statement based on their prior involvement with Plaintiffs, particularly the work Plaintiffs allegedly did for the Lambert Defendants in both Michigan and Pennsylvania.
uncertain
Plaintiffs → infer → Michigan
And it is therefore reasonable for those hearing only that Plaintiffs (1) had a conflict of interest, (2) were generally incompetent and lacking any ability in their fields of business, and (3) operated secretly and maliciously for the federal government to conclude that the Lambert Defendants based their knowledge, and any purported opinion statement, on specific previous interactions with Plaintiffs that the Lambert Defendants never disclosed or explained.
asserted
Defendants → hear → that
For example, the Lambert Defendants allegedly made the statement that Plaintiffs were conflicted with no explanation of Plaintiffs' prior work that caused a conflict.
uncertain
that → make → conflict
Similarly, the general statements impugning Plaintiffs' performance and honesty imply specific knowledge of Plaintiffs' prior dealings or work that, again, the Lambert Defendants allegedly did not disclose.
uncertain
Defendants → impugn → that
Nevertheless, because (1) the Lambert Defendants do not clearly and substantively brief an argument that the specific allegedly defamatory statements at issue were each nonactionable pure opinion and (2) the issue is context-specific and fact-driven, the Court concludes that this is more appropriate for resolution on a motion for summary judgment after the close of discovery.
uncertain
this → brief → discovery
Plaintiffs' general assertions that the allegedly defamatory statements "were and are provably false statements of fact" are more so the type of conclusory allegation that requires some additional supporting facts to plausibly establish the element of falsity.
uncertain
that → require → falsity
The same is true concerning actual malice and Plaintiffs' generalized allegations that Lambert Defendants "acted with willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, and/or entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences, and they specifically intended to cause Plaintiffs harm.
asserted
they → concern → harm
Nevertheless, the Court concludes that the complaint provides sufficient factual matter to reasonably infer these elements….
asserted
complaint → conclude → elements
[T]he complaint alleges that the parties worked together without issue on numerous projects until the point when Plaintiffs disclosed no evidence of election fraud in Fulton County and declined Lambert Defendants' request to falsely report otherwise, at which point Lambert Defendants became "furious."
asserted
Defendants → allege → request
And this allegedly occurred while Lambert Defendants were promoting claims of election fraud, "us[ing] the public controversy from the 2020 Presidential Election to establish themselves as leading promoters (and profiteers) of election fraud narratives, and earn[ing] substantial income … [for] participat[ion] in election fraud investigations and lawsuits."
uncertain
Defendants → occur → investigations
Accordingly, the complaint as a whole can be fairly read to allege that the Lambert Defendants orchestrated a deliberate defamation campaign against Plaintiffs with the specific intent to dissuade others from doing business with Plaintiffs, not due to legitimate concerns, but in retaliation for Plaintiffs' accurate report finding no evidence of election fraud and refusal to falsely report otherwise.
asserted
Defendants → read → fraud
…and 10 more, not listed.
The Aporia
