<p>112041148.5
IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
RICHARD E. BELL, JR.,
KAREN K. BELL,
BRANDEN R. BELL and BRIAN E. BELL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JOHNSON PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC,
a/k/a JOHNSON PUBLISHING, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
FILE No. 7:16-cv-00016-HL
DEFENDANT JOHNSON PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC'S REPLY BRIEF IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Case 7:16-cv-00016-HL Document 39 Filed 06/30/17 Page 1 of 12
1
112041148.5
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Johnson Publishing Company's ("JPC") Motion for Partial Judgment on the
Pleadings (D.E. 34) demonstrates that Plaintiffs Richard "Rick" and Karen Bell (the "Bell
Parents") cannot maintain an action for libel and a judgment should be entered on all counts
against them and in Defendant's favor. In their response, the Bell Parents confirm that they have
no claim for libel per quod. In a futile attempt to save their libel per se claim, the Bell Parents
improperly rely on matters outside of the pleadings and misstate the law of libel in Georgia.
Conflating libel per quod (which permits analysis of extrinsic evidence) with libel per se (which
prohibits innuendo, inference, and extrinsic evidence), the Bell Parents argue that the scant
references to Sam and Susan Martin (pseudonyms) in the Articles (the "Parent References")
somehow suggest or imply the Bell Parents' participation in a criminal cover-up. They further
argue they can prove that implication through extrinsic evidence, namely, their previously
dismissed slander claim. Georgia law is clear - libel per se cannot be established through
innuendo or with the aid of extrinsic proof.
Plaintiffs also argue that their April 2014 and May 2014 demands for "retraction" in all
"national media" and all "U.S. print and broadcast media," along with an admission of liability,
an admission that JPC "caused serious harm to the Bell family," and