Defamation is very, VERY hard to prove in a case like this where the person being defamed is a public figure. The way US law is set up gives all the onus to the victim to prove a case like this. There's a reason you just don't see that very often.
Correct, which is why the discovery process is so vital, because if you whiff, you've blown a ton of money.
The reason why they are 'hard to prove', is really code for "it's very expensive".
Plus, that truth about the cost of it, is coming from decades gone by, where nobody used a computer or a smartphone to communicate if they were intentionally
My premise is, in this day and age it's very easy to be sloppy and the evidence would be ALL over the phones and computers of those at 345 Park Ave.
If Goodell did tell Mortensen to leave the PSI readings up on ESPN's site for as long as they did, it's highly doubtful Goodell/Pash met with Moretensen in person to tell him do to that.
See?
Did you read the Pats counter report? There is an email exchange between the Pats lawyers and Pash where Pash says he will ask ESPN to adjust the PSI reports. He never did, He just arrogat pandering to Kraft, and they lied, and did the opposite of what they promised to do. And, I know why.
The only logical reason why Brady never sued is because he was burned out AND there would be something personally embarrassing on his phone (Giselle naked, etc, whatever), and it wouldn't be worth it.
That's really why someone might not want to do it. It's not about difficulty, though, it's what you can deduce from the evidence that's sitting there waiting to be unveiled.
