Although his post should have been expressed more clearly, essentially he is right. If sued for defamation the defendant can assert the defense of TRUTH. A truthful statement is not defamatory, but both sides have a burden of proof to sustain.  Asserting that defense is not going to stop the suit. It only establishes an argument for the defendant to avoid liability.

At trial the plaintiff is charged with the burden of establishing a prima facie case of defamation. At the conclusion of his case in chief the defendant will move to dismiss the case for failure to sustain his burden of proof. If the Plaintiff has borne his burden the motion will be denied, and the buden of proof is shifted to the defendant to establish his defense that the statement he made was truthful. The rest is a matter for the trier of fact (judge or jury) to decide.

Defamation suits are messy. I represented a plaintiff in one several years ago. Depending on the scope of the statement made by the defendant, he is permitted wide lattitude in discovery (depositions, interrogatories, request for production of documents and requests for admissions) to prove his defense. In my case my client was required to produce a 164 cartons of documents. Ultimately the defendant could not make any sense out of them, and wound up paying a $50,000.00 settlement to terminate further litigation.to post a reply: login - or - register