# Edwards v. Schwartz

> District Court, W.D. Virginia · March 19, 2019 · 378 F. Supp. 3d 468

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7253663

## Case

- **Full name:** Marc EDWARDS v. Paul SCHWARTZ
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Virginia
- **Decided:** March 19, 2019
- **Citations:** 378 F. Supp. 3d 468
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Urbanski
- **Judges:** Urbanski
- **Cited by:** 34 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7253663

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- declining to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants who posted about plaintiff on Twitter and other social media platforms, noting “[t]here is no factual matter in Edwards’ pleadings suggesting that the authors of these communications took affirmative steps to direct t…
- observing that “affirmative defenses such as substantial truth are . . . generally adjudicated at the summary judgment stage” absent “rare circumstances where facts sufficient to rule on [the defense] are alleged in the complaint”
- finding that “a charge of bullying is an intrinsically relative statement” depending on viewpoint and perspective
- noting that “the allegedly defamatory statements giving rise to this matter are related to an existing public controversy”

## Opinion text

Michael F. Urbanski, Chief United States District Judge
This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 13, plaintiff Marc Edwards' Amended Complaint, ECF No. 9, filed by defendants Paul Schwartz, Yanna Lambrinidou, and Melissa Mays (hereinafter, collectively, "defendants"), pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for want of personal jurisdiction and failure to *478 state a claim upon which relief can be granted, respectively. The defendants have also moved for attorney's fees pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2 . This matter was removed from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Virginia, to the United States District Court for Western District of Virginia on August 1, 2018. This court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . 1 Edwards filed his Amended Complaint on August 24, 2018, alleging defamation per se (Count I), defamation (Count II), tortious interference with contract expectancy, business relationship, and economic advantage (Count III), common civil law conspiracy (Count IV), and statutory civil conspiracy pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-499 (Count V), against all defendants. The court held a hearing on October 29, 2018, after which it ordered Edwards to file a supplemental brief (henceforth "Supplemental Memorandum") identifying which of the numerous statements set forth in the Amended Complaint allegedly give rise to causes of action under Count I and Count II. The court requested the Supplemental Memorandum include only those statements that fall within Virginia's statute of limitations period for defamation. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-247.1 (West). 2 On November 9, 2018, Edwards filed this memorandum with the court. ECF No. 27. Schwartz and Mays filed a response on November 16, 2018, ECF No. 30, and Lambrinidou filed a separate response on November 21, 2018, ECF No. 31. Upon thorough examination of the voluminous submissions made by the parties and for the reasons set forth herein, the motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED as to Counts I-V.
I.
A.
The controversy giving rise to this case relates to protracted personal, professional, and advocacy-related disputes concerning the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Marc Edwards, a Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University ("Virginia Tech") professor involved in exposing the contamination in Flint, Michigan, claims that prior to the events giving rise to this case, he "enjoyed a distinguished reputation in the community at large and an unblemished professional reputation in the fields of education, science, and community advocacy." ECF No. 9, at 2-3. Edwards' causes of action in Counts I-V are predicated upon an allegedly defamatory letter ("Letter") published on May 10, 2018, "as well as numerous subsequent dates," and a multitude of other statements made via "Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, television interview, radio interviews, emails, correspondence, *479 and other public fora." Id. at 5, 24 . The statements alleged as defamatory or defamatory per se fall into two categories: (1) those contained in the Letter, and (2) and those contained in communications made via Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and elsewhere. It is the Letter, however, that by Edwards' own characterization, is "at the heart of this case." ECF No. 21, at 4 ; see id. at 29 ("[T]he case arises from this Letter ...").
Edwards asserts that the Letter marked the "crescendo" of a concerted and ongoing disparagement campaign conducted by the defendants against him that began in 2016. ECF No. 9, at 4. The Letter accuses Edwards of, among other things, speaking on behalf of Flint residents without their consent, engaging in "[u]nsubstantiated defamation of Flint residents," and obstructing "Flint's right for self-determination." ECF No. 9-1 ; ECF No. 27-1, at 2. In the course of this litigation, Edwards submitted three versions of the Letter for the court's review. Though each version of the Letter is substantively the same, the quantity and identities of the signatories differ. The first version of the Letter was submitted with the Amended Complaint as Exhibit 1, ECF No. 9-1, and featured the signatures of 39 Flint workers, parents, and residents, including Melissa Mays, as well as an Episcopal priest. It is this first version of the Letter that was apparently sent on May 10, 2018 as an email attachment to, among others, Virginia Tech president Timothy Sands, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the National Academy of Sciences, the Association of Environmental and Engineering Science Professors, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Foundation, and several individuals within Edwards' professional community or associated with the aforementioned organizations. ECF No. 9, at 6. The content of the email is as follows:
Esteemed President Sands,
Residents of Flint request you tell us where we can file a formal complaint against the behavior, since January 2016, of Professor Marc Edwards of Virginia Tech. We also request that you send representatives to Flint as soon as possible for a meeting with us to hear directly from us about our experiences with Mr. Edwards and our call for an investigation into Mr. Edwards' conduct and the harm his actions have caused.
Attached is our full complaint. Thank you for your time and immediate attention on this matter.
Affected Residents of Flint, Michigan
Id. The Letter itself is addressed "To the Scientific and Engineering Communities." Id. The following "false and harmful" statements from the Letter were flagged by Edwards as defamatory and/or defamatory per se and are excerpted and numbered below as they were presented in paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint. 3 Id. at 5 . The bolded portions of paragraphs 13(a) - 13 (i) were bolded by Edwards, presumably to direct the court's attention specifically to those statements and/or sentences.
Paragraph 13(a)
Residents of Flint.... Also request that you send representatives to Flint as soon as possible for a meeting with us to hear directly from us about our experiences with Mr. Edwards and our call for an investigation into Mr. Edwards' conduct and the harm his actions have caused.
Paragraph 13(b)
*480 This is dishonest, paternalistic and exploitative and, we fear, used by Mr. Edwards to build his own professional and financial power ... Far too many residents are exhausted from Mr. Edwards [sic] bullying ... Mr. Edwards is using our crisis and suffering for entertainment, intrigue, exhibitionism, and personal power that might attract the media and outside readers but are completely inappropriate for the circumstances.
Paragraph 13(c)
Mr. Edwards' portrayal of Flint residents as dumb, dirty and vulnerable to being misled by anyone other than himself started in early 2016, is ongoing, and is misguided and offensive
...
Paragraph 13(d)
Contrary to Mr. Edwards' claims, Flint residents were never told that shigella was in our tap water and, as a whole, never stopped using proper hygiene from fear of the water. The allegation that FACHEP announced that they found shigella in Flint water is a lie. The allegation that WE caused our own shigella outbreak because we stopped bathing out of fear of the water, is also a lie.
Paragraph 13(e)
What scares us is Mr. Edwards who uses his position as a scientist to misrepresent us and silence us.
Paragraph 13(f)
In May 2016, Mr. Edwards erroneously accused Scott Smith and Water Defense of scaring residents out of bathing.... Mr. Edwards also accused Dr. Laura Sullivan and Mr. McElmurry of FACHEP [Flint Area Community Health and Environment Partnership] of causing Flint residents to stop bathing because their research scared us (according to some reports, Mr. Edwards made the preposterous claim that as many as 80% of us returned to a state of filth). This is insulting and false. It is also blatantly unscientific because Mr. Edwards did not bother to ask actual Flint residents about our bathing habits before coming up with this pronouncement.
Paragraph 13(g)
To our knowledge, there is no one in the scientific community overseeing Mr. Edwards' work or the way he uses his power over powerless residents. As far as we know there is no one in the scientific community ensuring the integrity and honesty of Mr. Edwards' words, research and activism. Mr. Edwards has repeatedly spoken and written about how there are no bacteria or dangerous pathogens in Flint residents' water, even though he is not a microbiologist nor is he doing mass testing within our homes.
Paragraph 13(h)
Instead, Mr. Edwards goes around the country giving talks that dismiss our concerns and calls us 'tribal' .... Shockingly, Mr. Edwards has gone as far as to declare that the Flint Water Crisis was over 2 years ago (in 2016).... We need an end to his disruptive presence so that we can finally clean up the mess he has left behind him, focus on healing the rifts he has created between residents, and try to address the real problems plaguing us.
Paragraph 13(i)
We are reaching out to you, key representatives of the scientific and engineering communities who keep awarding and rewarding Mr. Edwards for his behavior, because we need full protection from Mr. Edwards immediately. We also need an immediate investigation that puts OUR voices at the center and *481 demands evidence for all claims made by Mr. Edwards. We ask for a committee that includes academics, professionals, and Environmental Justice leaders who have expertise in abuses of professional power against poisoned communities like Flint.
Id. at 6-8 .
Edwards claims that following the May 10, 2018 publication of the Letter, the defendants, "acting individually and in concert," created a webpage www.flintcomplaints.com and a Facebook page to "host, draw attention to, and facilitate the republishing" of the Letter. Id. at 21 . Edwards further claims that each of the defendants, "at various times and by various means, re-published the Letter to various audiences and members of the public, including colleagues and other members" of Edwards' professional community and. field, and continue to make defamatory statements about him. Id. at 23 . In his Supplemental Memorandum, Edwards submitted two additional versions of the Letter, ECF Nos. 26-1, 26-2, in which "provision was made for non-Flint residents to sign." ECF No. 9, at 21. The second version of the Letter (Exhibit A) includes the signatures of Mays and Lambrinidou. ECF No. 26. The third version (Exhibit B) includes the signatures of all three defendants. Id. With respect to why the first version of the Letter (Exhibit 1) did not contain the signatures of Lambrinidou or Schwartz, Edwards explains:
The Letter falsely purported to be written and submitted by "Residents of Flint" and, in its initial version, was signed only by Flint residents. This was false because, on information and belief, Schwartz, Lambrinidou, and perhaps others participated in writing the Letter. According to an article for the East Village, the origins of the Letter were "strategically cloaked a little bit because the idea is to avoid its being associated too closely with any one individual or individuals." An anonymous Facebook page created to disseminate the letter, flintcomplaints.com, stated that the Letter was "crafted for us." According to an article published in the Roanoke Times, counsel for [d]efendants stated he did not know who compiled the Letter and, when asked who operated flintcomplaints.com, stated "that information isn't public." This explicitly false statement that the Letter was entirely the work of Flint residents - without outside input - was intended to, and did in fact, add to the Letter's sting and thereby increase its damaging effect on Edwards professional reputation.
ECF No. 9, at 12 ; ECF No. 27, at 2. Edwards alleges that, "upon information and belief," Schwartz, Mays, and Lambrinidou "collaborated, worked on, shared ideas, encouraged one another, contributed to and generally acted in concert to draft the contents of the Letter." ECF No. 9, at 12. Elsewhere in his pleadings, Edwards similarly avers that the defendants, "both individually and acting as conspirators in concert and together, and as members and representatives of a non-profit organization known as the Campaign for Lead Free Water, participated in drafting, signing, electronically communicating and/or mailing a damaging defamatory and tortious letter and email." Id. at 2 . Many of the allegedly defamatory statements in paragraphs 13(a) - 13(i) featured hyperlinks to third-party online materials, including newspaper articles, blog posts, an audio recording, and a transcript of remarks made by Edwards at Swarthmore College. Edwards asserts that a review of this hyperlinked material demonstrates that much of it is factually inconsistent with statements and accusations contained in the Letter. Id. at 4 . Indeed, he asserts that the Letter sent to the "president of *482 Virginia Tech," as well as numerous academic listservs and scientific colleagues, is "replete with falsehoods." Id. at 5 . In terms of who authored the Letter, Edwards claims that metadata recovered from and embedded within the Microsoft Word document containing the Letter indicates that it was "saved on and distributed from ... Melissa Mays' computer." Id. at 23 . Edwards further states that the Letter may also have been saved on and distributed from other defendants' computers. Id.
In addition to those statements in the Letter, Edwards originally asserted as defamatory or defamatory per se a dizzying array of statements contained in communications purportedly published by the defendants at various times, to various audiences, via various media, including Facebook and Twitter. It was initially unclear to the court which of these communications (and statements contained therein) Edwards was alleging gave rise to causes of action for defamation, which were being offered as circumstantial evidence of intent, which were included in support of Counts III-V only, and which were presented merely to provide context. Following a hearing on October 29, 2018, the court requested, and Edwards later produced, the Supplemental Memorandum. In this memorandum, Edwards identified six communications and/or instances of alleged defamation besides the Letter. ECF No. 27, at 3-6. These additional communications are contained in paragraphs 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 63 of the Amended Complaint. Edwards also attached, as discussed above, the second and third versions of the Letter as exhibits. In this Supplemental Memorandum, Edwards also conceded that statements contained in paragraphs 49-51 of the Amended Complaint do not provide a basis for liability under Count I or Count II because they are time-barred by Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-247.1 , Virginia's statute of limitations for defamation. The six additional communications, and concomitant statements, are reproduced below, in relevant part, as they were presented in the Amended Complaint:
Paragraph 52
On September 9, 2017, Mays stated via Twitter, "The person [Edwards] being talked about betrayed my family. He promised he would fight for us and when he was coopted by the State, he abandoned us."
Paragraph 53
In late 2017, Lambrinidou made two keynote presentations that, based on information and belief, included false and harmful statements of and concerning Edwards. Attendees live tweeted that an engineer involved in D.C. and Flint [Edwards] was engaged in "structural bullying" and compared Edwards' conduct to sexual harassment and assault victims in the "#metoo" movement.
Paragraph 54
On February 27, 2018, Mays made the following false and harmful statements of and concerning Edwards during an interview on CAN TV, an online program available now on YouTube:
As for the filters ... also ... Wayne state has been trying to get this study out for a year. The state of Michigan has blocked it ... as well as some other PhDs (I am not bitter). The tap filters grown [sic] bacteria.... Boil the water. We had to find that the hard way because the filters cause Dysentery (shigella)....
From 2014 Hundreds of people in Flint died from pneumonia. Probably undiagnosed legionnaires disease. They are willing to kill people. Why are they killing us off because who will pay the bills? Because they want the land.
Paragraph 55 *483 On May 10, Flint residents sent a letter out to the heads of the Scientific and Engineering Communities and Academia asking for an independent committee to come to Flint and hear our stories firsthand of the attacks and intimidation by a certain researcher [Edwards].
[T]he social media, public attacks and intimidation by this researcher [Edwards] have not stopper [sic] and now his students have copied this behavior in a presentation just last week[.]
[Edwards] began another barrage of false accusations to her personally, which is abhorrent behavior for a [p]rofessor[.]
Paragraph 56
Edwards' imperial and colonial version of "saving" us by denying through gaslighting, intimidation, and ridicule the real harm that he inflicts on the ground, and by belittling our knowledge, demands, organizing and mobilization in defense of our health is corrosive, unethical and not about science in any sense of the word.
We are carefully watching you [Dr. Cooper and anyone who supports Edwards].
That Edwards' full-of-untruths story of "heroism" was recently served to AAAS by citizen science ambassador Dr. Caren Cooper of North Carolina State University to get Edwards the prestigious "scientific freedom and responsibility" award, that Cooper has no direct knowledge about Edwards' work in DC and Flint, that after nominating Edwards Cooper was granted a seat on Edwards' $1.9 million EPA project, and that Cooper has known but has expressed not an iota of curiosity about community voices protesting Edwards' community work and the harm that has ensued, are not lost on us.
These statements, published via Facebook by [d]efendant Schwartz ...
Paragraph 63
On June 30, 2018, Melissa Mays published defamatory statements of and concerning Edwards via Facebook and Twitter, associated with a photograph of a water hydrant spewing discolored water that defendants stated had been taken days earlier. After Edwards['] team demonstrated that the viral photo was not taken a few days early, but was actually from 2015 during the height of the water crisis, Mays stated:
Here is yet ANOTHER example of Virginia Tech's Marc Edwards and @flintwaterstudy taking it upon themselves to attack poisoned Flint residents and call them liars.... It's just appalling that professionals 'investigate' and attack residents, not the people who poisoned us.
ECF No. 9, at 18-24.
Edwards contends that the publication (and apparent republication) of the Letter and the statements reproduced above were part of a "defamatory campaign" lasting "nearly two years," during which the defendants "refused to back down ... despite [his] repeated attempts to demonstrate the falsity of their statements." Id. at 4-5 . In furtherance of this campaign, Edwards claims the defendants (1) "purposefully and repeatedly misquoted [him] and intentionally and falsely attributed damaging statements to him that he never made," (2) "deliberately misquoted or misrepresented publicly available facts and/or articles and documents ... they [themselves] ... referred to during their smear campaign," and (3) "disregarded the truth" by ignoring "publicly available information of which they had actual or constructive knowledge that contained true facts inconsistent with [their] false statements." Id. at 4 . He alleges that the Letter, taken as a whole, as well as the individual statements excerpted in paragraphs 13(a) - 13(i), *484 falsely imply that he "violated ethical obligations required by members of his profession," including obligations outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineering Code of Ethics. Id. at 12 . He further asserts that the Letter implies that he "lacks integrity and is unfit to perform his professional duties" and resulted in permanent stigmatization. Id. Edwards, of course, flatly denies the truth of all of these purported implications.
B.
In support of his contention that the defendants acted with "actual malice" and "common law malice," Edwards cites (1) the defendants' continued publication of statements containing falsehoods despite his efforts to apprise them of their falsity, as well as (2) the defendants' improper motives for continuing to publish said falsehoods despite an awareness of their falsity.
Edwards claims to have made numerous efforts to "dissuade [the defendants] from repeatedly publishing false statements" through "conciliatory emails" 4 and text messages 5 to the defendants "requesting opportunities to explain the falsity of [their] aspersions." Id. On May 23, 2017, for example, after he first learned of the Letter, Edwards claims to have emailed and/or engaged in other correspondence with the defendants (1) "challenging its misrepresentations," (2) "providing clarifications and supporting citations [for] his statements that were intentionally mischaracterized in the Letter," and (3) "attempting to demonstrate the falsity of the Letter's statements and misattributions." Id. at 29 . Edwards also claims to have requested documentation supporting the allegedly false statements in the Letter. Id. The defendants reportedly responded to these overtures by publishing additional defamatory statements, including labeling his correspondence and associated media comments as "threats," and by republishing the defamatory Letter on a website and elsewhere. Id. Edwards also allegedly published several blog posts on www.flintwaterstudy.org "debunking" the defendants' false statements. Id. at 27 . In one such post, published on May 4, 2014 and titled, "Direct Response to Public Assertions and Insinuations Made Against Us By a Few Individuals," Edwards "attempted to counter [d]efendants statements accusing him of unethical conduct." Id. at 28 . In another post, titled, "Correcting Some Misconceptions About Our 9/15/2017 Press Conference: Lead Data," Edwards "attempted to correct factually false attacks by the [d]efendants" through (1) clarifying that he had not said Flint water was "safe," (2) disputing claims that he had not been transparent or respectful, (3) and explaining why it was incorrect to claim that he made the unqualified statement that the "the Flint water crisis was over." Id. at 29 . Lambrinidou allegedly responded *485 to this latter post with "more than a dozen tweets disparaging Edwards." Id.
Taken together, Edwards maintains that these exchanges via email, text message, Facebook, and blog posts indicate that "[d]efendants had knowledge of falsity, or recklessly disregarded the truth, when making defamatory statements[,] including those alleged in paragraph 13." Id. Lastly, Edwards avers, upon information and belief, that defendants were aware that in response to the Letter, representatives from the American Association for the Advancement of Science met with Flint residents and found that the Letter's myriad allegations did not warrant further investigation, which "demonstrated the factually false nature of the statements alleged in paragraph 13." Id. at 29-30 .
Furthermore, Edwards claims that the defendants had "various and overlapping motives to damage [him]," including "financial, professional, and social incentives to make negative and damaging statements regarding [him] and his work." Id. at 4, 16 . The nature of these alleged "incentives" varies widely by defendant.
Lambrinidou, for example, purportedly "harbors severe animosity" toward Edwards following, among other things, a romantic falling-out, as well as a professional estrangement related to disagreements over collaborative research projects and a course ("Engineering Ethics and the Public") they co-taught from 2007-2010 at Virginia Tech. Id. at 13-17 . Edwards states that he and Lambrinidou decided to cease co-teaching the Virginia Tech course together, and initially agreed that Edwards would "lead teaching of the course." Id. at 14 . Edwards claims that shortly thereafter, he and Lambrinidou began to "have disputes regarding intellectual property," with Lambrinidou questioning whether Edwards could continue to teach the course they co-developed or "put into practice ideas they had jointly developed and published." Id. at 15 . Edwards claims to have suggested on multiple occasions that they address these and other concerns through faculty mediation services at Virginia Tech, but that Lambrinidou declined to participate in this program. Id. at 15 . "[U]pon information and belief," Edwards asserts that Lambrinidou made "repeated negative statements" about him to Schwartz and Mays, who "believe that Edwards had treated Lambrinidou wrongfully." Id. at 15-16 .
Mays, according to Edwards, possesses a "vested financial interest in generating attention in the Flint Water Crisis." Id. at 16 . More specifically, Mays is allegedly the "named plaintiff in a multi-million-dollar class action lawsuit involving the Flint water crisis, alleging harm to her family from lead and copper exposure." Id. at 16 . Edwards claims to have exposed and reported Mays' manipulation of water samples using a Virginia Tech lead test kit to the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 2016. Id. at 17 . Edwards further claims that by manipulating test results, Mays "demonstrated dangerous levels of lead in her water." Id. at 16 . Mays allegedly admitted violating testing protocols to Edwards in person, but nevertheless "gave false results to the media in a manner to promote her lawsuit." Id. at 16-17 . Edwards claims he was "obligated to provide evidence of Mays['] falsified results to the Environmental Protection Agency, which funded the work." Id. at 17 .
More generally, Edwards claims that the defendants (1) have made numerous statements expressing resentment or jealously toward the credit and accolades he has received, (2) expressed animosity towards him because they "believe he represents government interests and does not perform objective water testing," and (3) "harbor severe animosity" towards him *486 due to "differences regarding community activism" and "other issues surrounding the Flint water crisis." Id. at 16 . Edwards claims that it was this accumulated animus toward him that propelled the publication (and republication) of the Letter and other bad-faith conduct on the part of the defendants. On June 27-28, 2018, for example, Edwards claims:
Mays, Lambrinidou, and Schwartz directed and sent false and harmful statements via social media posts to the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Engagement Scholarship Consortium, and the Association of Public and Land Grants [sic] University, that included but were not limited to republication of the defamatory Letter quoted above, and affirmatively discouraged these professional organizations and foundations from awarding Edwards' team at Virginia Tech awards or any other positive recognition. Edwards and his team were finalists for a prestigious award and cash prize, and the [d]efendants purposefully targeted re-publication of the Letter to influence the selection process.
Id. at 24 . Further, Edwards claims that on July 18-19, 2016, the defendants, as well as others, formed a group known as the Campaign for Lead Free Water, which "has attempted to establish expertise and credibility, in an area of research and advocacy in which Edwards has received international recognition," and "holds itself out as operating in competition with Edwards' professional work and team at Virginia Tech." Id. at 17 .
In Count IV and Count V, Edwards alleges that the defendants' "concerted smear campaign" was part of an ongoing civil conspiracy to "attack and damage" his professional reputation and "demonize[ ] [him] and his work to the public at large as well as [to] specific individuals and subsets within Edwards' professional community." Id. at 17 . Edwards claims generally that many of the allegedly defamatory statements "contain false implications of fact damaging to [his] reputation, including but not limited to the implication that [he] has engaged in unethical, inappropriate and/or illegal conduct sufficient to provide the basis for a formal complaint and initiate an investigation." Id. at 30 . Edwards claims that the defendants' tortious conduct resulted in damages and in fact harmed him by (1) diminishing his ability to procure grant funding, (2) stunting his career development, (3) negatively affecting his eligibility for professional awards and commendations, (4) permanently diminishing his potential earning capacity, and (5) causing him and his family severe emotional distress. Id. at 30-31 . More specifically, Edwards claims (1) that colleagues otherwise inclined to nominate him for professional awards and prizes have expressed reluctance to do so because of fears they would be "targeted," (2) that research sponsors have expressed concern to him regarding the defendants' "public attacks" and accusations that he engaged in unethical behavior, (3) that he has been retained for far fewer speaking engagements since the publication of the Letter, and that those who do book him have requested proof of liability insurance, and (4) impairment of his ability to raise funds via crowd source initiatives, to expose environmental injustices, and to conduct his "life's work and passion." Id. at 31-32 .
C.
In their motion to dismiss and subsequent filings, the defendants assert a variety of grounds for dismissal. In support of their motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction, the defendants claim that they are not residents of Virginia and that there are insufficient minimum contexts with Virginia to confer either general or specific jurisdiction. ECF No. 13, at 41-42.
*487 They further assert that a finding of personal jurisdiction would offend notions of fair play and substantial justice given the "unconscionable burden" and "inconvenience" it would place on Mays and the "compelling state interest Michigan has over the health, safety, and welfare of her denizens." Id. at 4 . In support of their motion to dismiss Count I and Count II for failure to state a claim, the defendants assert that the statements made by or attributed to them about Edwards are "substantially true by his own words" bearing citations to the "public record" with "reasonable interpretations drawn therefrom," and, in any event, constitute non-actionable, protected opinion in the context of a "heated debate about matters of public concern and science." Id. at 3 ; ECF No. 22, at 2.
The defendants further contend that Edwards' lawsuit represents a "cynical attempt" to "strip the residents of Flint of their right to self-determination by replacing their voices with the judgment of Virginians," and "seeks to embroil this [c]ourt in a public policy debate over the history and future of the City of Flint, with the battle lines set between those seeking community empowerment by allowing residents to speak for themselves versus those with a preference for scientific paternalism." ECF No. 13, at 1-2. The defendants also assert that Edwards has failed to plausibly allege that they acted with "actual malice," which is the appropriate standard given Edwards' status as a public figure. Id. at 19 . With respect to the remaining counts, the defendants assert that Edwards has failed to plead several elements essential to sustain Count III for tortious interference, and that his claims for civil conspiracy (both common law and statutory) in Count IV and Count V are redundant and fail for, among other reasons, lack of any non-speculative harm. Id. at 1, 14 .
The court will first address the veritable thicket of jurisdictional questions presented by this case, and then proceed to address the defendants' motion to dismiss as to Count I and Count II for defamation per se and defamation, respectively. For reasons stated below, the court will not address Counts III-V.
II.
"When personal jurisdiction is properly challenged under Rule 12(b)(2), the jurisdictional question is to be resolved by the judge, with the burden on the plaintiff ultimately to prove grounds for jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence." Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc. , 334 F.3d 390 , 396 (4th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). However, where, as here, the court considers a challenge to personal jurisdiction without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction, rather than show jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. (citing Combs v. Bakker , 886 F.2d 673 , 676 (4th Cir. 1989) ). "The court, in deciding whether a plaintiff has met this burden, must construe all relevant pleading allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, assume credibility, and draw the most favorable inferences for the existence of jurisdiction." Brooks v. Motsenbocker Advanced Devs., Inc. , 242 F. App'x. 889 , 890 (4th Cir. 2007). "If a plaintiff makes the requisite showing, the defendant then bears the burden of presenting a 'compelling case,' that, for other reasons, the exercise of jurisdiction would be so unfair as to violate due process." Reynolds Foil, Inc. v. Pai , No. 3:09cv657, 2010 WL 1225620 , at *1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2010) (quoting Burger King v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462 , 477-78, 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) ). "For purposes of the motion to dismiss, *488 the reviewing court may presume that any uncontradicted evidence submitted by either party is true." Id.
The court employs the traditional two-step analysis to resolve the personal jurisdiction dispute at issue. Therefore, the court must first decide whether Virginia's long-arm statute, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1 , 6 permits the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and second, whether the exercise of such jurisdiction comports with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g. , Mitrano v. Hawes , 377 F.3d 402 , 406 (4th Cir. 2004) ; ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc. , 126 F.3d 617 , 622 (4th Cir. 1997). Virginia's long-arm statute extends personal jurisdiction to the extent permitted by due process, and therefore "the statutory inquiry necessarily merges with the constitutional inquiry, and the two inquiries essentially become one." Young v. New Haven Advocate , 315 F.3d 256 , 261 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Stover v. O'Connell Assocs., Inc. , 84 F.3d 132 , 135-36 (4th Cir. 1996) ). The inquiry becomes whether the defendants maintain sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state so as not to offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310 , 316, 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457 , 463, 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) ).
"The standard for determining the existence of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant varies, depending on whether the defendant's contacts with the forum state also provide the basis for the suit." Carefirst , 334 F.3d at 397 . "If the defendant's contacts with the [s]tate are also the basis for the suit, those contacts may establish specific jurisdiction.... [I]f the defendant's contacts with the [s]tate are not also the basis for suit, then jurisdiction over the defendant must arise from the defendant's general, more persistent, but unrelated contacts with the [s]tate." ALS Scan, Inc. v. Dig. Serv. Consultants, Inc. , 293 F.3d 707 , 712 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall , 466 U.S. 408 , 414 & n.8-9, 104 S.Ct. 1868 , 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984) ). Edwards properly asserts only specific jurisdiction pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1 . 7
To determine whether specific jurisdiction exists, the Fourth Circuit has adopted a three-part test. The court must consider: "(1) whether the defendant purposefully availed [herself] of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum state, (2) whether the plaintiff's claim arises out of the defendant's forum-related activities, and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant would be constitutionally reasonable." Young , 315 F.3d at 261 . In relation to the first factor, "no clear formula [exists] for determining what constitutes 'purposeful availment.' " Reynolds Foil , 2010 WL 1225620 , at *2. However, "[i]f, and only if ... the plaintiff has satisfied this first prong of the test for specific jurisdiction need [the court] move on to a consideration of prongs two and three." Consulting Eng'rs Corp. v. Geometric Ltd. , 561 F.3d 273 , 278 (4th Cir. 2009). "The second prong of the test for specific jurisdiction ... requires that the defendant's *489 contacts with the forum state form the basis of the suit." Id. at 278-79 (citing Burger King , 471 U.S. at 472 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 ). The third prong of the specific jurisdiction test "permits a court to consider additional factors to ensure the appropriateness of the forum once it has determined that a defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business there." Id. at 279.
In Count I and Count II, Edwards "incorporate[d] by reference ... all of the allegations appearing elsewhere in this [c]omplaint." ECF No. 9, at 32-33. In its review of the pleadings, the court struggled to determine with any precision which of Edwards' sundry "allegations" were intended to support which claims for relief. Moreover, it was evident that although asserting one count of defamation per se (Count I) and one count of defamation (Count II), subsumed within these counts were statements contained in the Letter sent via email to Virginia Tech on May 10, 2018, 8 and numerous other statements arising out of, among other things, the defendants' social media activity. Edwards' incorporation-by-reference approach placed the onus of sorting allegations scattered throughout his pleadings on the court. The resulting confusion between the parties and the court required the latter to order Edwards to submit a supplemental brief specifying which statements, besides those contained in the Letter, he was alleging constituted actionable defamation. Edwards' Supplemental Memorandum directed the court's attention to six communications: (1) Mays' September 9, 2017 Twitter post alleged in paragraph 52, (2) Lambrinidou's late 2017 "keynote presentations" alleged in paragraph 53, (3) Mays' February 27, 2018 interview on CAN TV, "an online program available now on YouTube," alleged in paragraph 54, (4) a Facebook post ostensibly published by all three defendants on a Facebook page titled Flint Complaints, alleged in paragraph 55, 9 (5) a Facebook post purportedly published by Schwartz on May 22, 2018, alleged in paragraph 56, and a (6) June 30, 2018 Twitter post by Mays alleged in paragraph 63. Edwards contends generally that the court has jurisdiction over these communications.
The Internet presents unique challenges to establishing personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. It has *490 been long held that the purposeful availment prong of the personal jurisdiction analysis can be met if a defendant's "intentional conduct [in the foreign state was] calculated to cause injury to [the plaintiff] in [the forum state]." Calder v. Jones , 465 U.S. 783 , 791, 104 S.Ct. 1482 , 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) ("Jurisdiction over petitioners is therefore proper in California based on the 'effects' of their Florida conduct in California."). Calder , however, does not vest jurisdiction in a state merely because it serves as the locus of the plaintiff's injury. See Walden v. Fiore , 571 U.S. 277 , 278, 134 S.Ct. 1115 , 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014) ("[M]ere injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient connection to the forum."). The "proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant's conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way." Id.
In the Internet context, the Fourth Circuit, "adopting and adapting" a three-part test posited in Zippo Manuf. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. , 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997), frames the Calder "effects" test as follows: "a [s]tate may, consistent with due process, exercise judicial power over a person outside of the [s]tate when that person (1) directs electronic activity into the [s]tate, (2) with the manifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the [s]tate, and (3) that activity creates, in a person within the [s]tate, a potential cause of action cognizable in the [s]tate's courts." ALS Scan , 293 F.3d at 714 .
The Fourth Circuit provided relevant guidance on the application of this standard in Young . 315 F.3d at 256 . There, two Connecticut newspapers and their staff allegedly defamed a Virginia prison warden, Stanley Young, by posting articles online discussing Connecticut's policy of housing prisoners in Virginia facilities. Id. at 258-59 . Warden Young argued, per Calder :
[T]hat the district court has specific personal jurisdiction over the newspaper defendants ... because of the following contacts between them and Virginia: (1) the newspapers, knowing that Young was a Virginia resident, intentionally discussed and defamed him in their articles, (2) the newspapers posted the articles on their websites, which were accessible in Virginia, and (3) the primary effects of the defamatory statements on Young's reputation were felt in Virginia.
Id. at 261-62 . The Fourth Circuit rejected Young's argument, noting that the place where Young felt the effects of the allegedly libelous statements was relevant to the jurisdictional analysis, but "emphasized how important it is ... to look at whether the defendant has expressly aimed or directed its conduct toward the forum state." Id. at 263 (citation omitted). The dispositive question, according to the Fourth Circuit, was "whether the newspapers manifested an intent to direct their website content ... discussing conditions in a Virginia prison ... to a Virginia audience." Id. In other words, the mere "act of placing information on the Internet" is not sufficient by itself to "subject[ ] that person to personal jurisdiction in each [s]tate in which the information is accessed" as, otherwise, a "person placing information on the Internet would be subject to personal jurisdiction in every [s]tate," and the "traditional due process principles governing a [s]tate's jurisdiction over persons outside of its borders would be subverted." Id. (citation omitted).
Here, Edwards asserts only specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and therefore the court must have jurisdiction over each claim that it decides. See Gatekeeper Inc. v. Stratech Sys., Ltd. , 718 F.Supp.2d 664 , 667-68 (E.D. Va. 2010)
*491 ("[T]hough the Fourth Circuit has yet to address this issue, the three courts of appeal that have done so have sensibly concluded that specific jurisdiction requires a claim-specific analysis."); see also Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc. , 472 F.3d 266 , 274 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1351, at 299 n.30 (2004) ("There is no such thing as supplemental specific personal jurisdiction; if separate claims are pled, specific personal jurisdiction must independently exist for each claim and the existence of personal jurisdiction for one claim will not provide the basis for another claim.") ).
Importantly, and as explained above, the court cannot, having determined that personal jurisdiction exists over a defendant with respect to one claim, use that claim to exert personal jurisdiction over the same defendant with respect to other claims that do not otherwise support such jurisdiction. See Helicopteros , 466 U.S. at 414 , 104 S.Ct. 1868 ; see also Remick v. Manfredy , 238 F.3d 248 , 255 (3d Cir. 2001). For the reasons explained below, Edwards has failed to make a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction as to the six claims arising out of the defamatory communications alleged in paragraphs 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 63 of the Amended Complaint.
A.
Edwards cannot satisfy the Calder "effects" test, as elucidated in Young , to establish this court's jurisdiction over his claims that arise out of the defendants' social media activity (paragraphs 52, 55, 56, 63), Lambrinidou's late 2017 keynote presentations and related "live tweet[s]" made by an unnamed third party (paragraph 53), 10 or Mays' February 27, 2018 interview on CAN TV, apparently available on YouTube (paragraph 54). Though alleging numerous instances of defamation arising out of communications on various media, Edwards does not separate these claims and/or causes of action into separate counts. Nor does he apparently regard any of the six additional communications identified above as separate claims for the purposes of establishing personal jurisdiction. That these six additional claims were pled collectively and presented under two umbrella counts, however, belies the fact that each constitutes a discrete cause of action arising under distinct circumstances for which a separate jurisdictional analysis is required. In other words, Edwards' pleading numerous instances of defamation under two counts does not relieve him of establishing, nor the court of evaluating, jurisdiction on a claim-by-claim basis. Indeed, "it is well-settled that 'repeated defamations do not constitute a [single] continuing tort,' " but *492 rather, "as courts have uniformly recognized, each separate defamatory statement itself constitutes a separate and distinct cause of action." Katz v. Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C. , 332 F.Supp.2d 909 , 917 (E.D. Va. 2004) (citation omitted); Hoai Thanh v. Ngo , No. CIV. PJM 14-448, 2015 WL 2227923 , at *2 (D. Md. May 8, 2015), aff'd sub nom. Hoai Thanh v. Hien T. Ngo , 694 F. App'x 200 (4th Cir. 2017) (holding that "[e]very alleged defamatory statement constitutes a separate instance of defamation, which a plaintiff must specifically allege"); see also English Boiler , 1999 WL 89125 at *3 (holding that in a defamation claim, "[a] plaintiff may not baldly allege a broad course of conduct over a lengthy period of time and later sue on any act that occurred during that time period," and that "[e]ach act of defamation is a separate tort ... a plaintiff must specifically allege"). Thus, the court must assess whether there is a basis for exercising jurisdiction over each of the seven communications Edwards alleges contained defamatory statements, i.e. , the Letter, plus the six communications described above.
The relevant legal principle requiring this court to individually assess defamatory communications of the kind alleged in this case is illustrated in McNeil v. Biaggi Productions, LLC , where the plaintiff appeared to allege that because the defendants "deliberately communicated via telephone and email with a third party located in Virginia" (Count 5), the court was permitted to exercise jurisdiction over other allegedly defamatory statements disseminated via Facebook, Twitter, and a blog (Counts 1-4 & 6-11) concerning the same or similar subject matter as the "telephone [call] and email." No. 3:15CV751, 2017 WL 2625069 , at *5-8 (E.D. Va. June 16, 2017). In addition to advancing a theory of ancillary specific jurisdiction, the plaintiff invoked the Calder "effects" test theory of jurisdiction. The McNeil court reiterated that mere injury to a Virginia resident is not a sufficient connection to Virginia, and therefore, per Young , posting defamatory statements on social media, without more, does not constitute purposeful availment. The court then rejected McNeil's ancillary specific jurisdiction argument, refusing to allow those communications which did not arise from contacts with Virginia to piggyback on Count 5, which did involve communications (and statements) which the court concluded were expressly directed at Virginia. Id. at *8. Vis-à-vis those statements made during the "telephone [call] and email" to a police department in Virginia alleged in Count 5, the court held that "[t]hat contact supports a finding of personal jurisdiction on Count V, which alleges defamation stemming from those precise communications. It does not, however, provide the [c]ourt with a basis to extend its jurisdictional reach to other, unrelated claims." Id. The McNeil court allowed the case to proceed based solely on those communications contained in Count 5. In support of this communication-specific approach, the McNeil court cited Gatekeeper Inc. v. Stratech Sys., Ltd. , 718 F.Supp.2d 664 , 667-69 (E.D. Va. 2010), where the court held that "if specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant with respect to one cause of action were sufficient to allow a plaintiff to allege a series of other claims not arising from the defendant's forum state contacts ... then th[e] important distinction between general and specific jurisdiction would be significantly attenuated, if not eviscerated." This court finds the reasoning in McNeil and Gatekeeper persuasive and will proceed by assessing the jurisdictional basis for each communication (and cause of action) alleged in the present case.
*493 B.
Edwards asserts that statements contained in the six communications identified in the Supplemental Memorandum (1) "caused tortious injury ... in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and, seemingly as an afterthought, that defendants (2) transmitted these communications "directly to Virginia Tech via social media." ECF No. 9, at 2 ; see also ECF No. 29, at 29 (same). No additional factual matter is proffered in support of the second generalized assertion, and although the court must construe the pleadings, affidavits, and other supporting documents in the light most favorable to Edwards, it need not "credit conclusory allegations or draw farfetched inferences." Masselli & Lane, PC v. Miller & Schuh, PA , 215 F.3d 1320 (4th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see Magic Toyota, Inc. v. Se. Toyota Distribs., Inc. , 784 F.Supp. 306 , 310 (D.S.C. 1992) (holding that a plaintiff's showing of personal jurisdiction must be based on specific facts set forth in the record in order to defeat defendants' motion to dismiss); see also Boykin Anchor Co., Inc. v. AT & T, Corp. , No. 5:10-CV-591-FL, 2011 WL 1456388 , at *2 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 14, 2011). In addition to the Fourth Circuit's express rejection in Young of jurisdiction undergirded solely on tortious injury in the forum, the weakness of Edwards' showing vis-à-vis the statements alleged in paragraphs 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 63 is underscored by the holdings of numerous courts in the Fourth Circuit and beyond in cases involving the publication of allegedly defamatory statements on websites or social media feeds.
In FireClean, LLC v. Tuohy , for example, the district court dismissed a defamation case for lack of personal jurisdiction where the underlying claims arose from articles posted on a firearms blog and various social media websites, including Facebook. No. 1:16-CV-0294, 2016 WL 3952093 , at *3 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2016). The allegedly defamatory posts and articles in FireClean questioned whether the plaintiff's product, a gun oil used to lubricate firearms and reduce carbon residue buildup, was any different than ordinary cooking oil. Id. at *2 . In one article published by defendant Tuohy, initially entitled "Lies, Errors, and Omissions," Tuohy stated that FireClean is a "common vegetable oil, with no evidence of additives for corrosion resistance or other features," and closed by criticizing the plaintiff for not being "entirely truthful about [their product], the way it works, or what it contains," and misleading consumers into buying their product at a markup under the belief that the "bottle of vegetable oil was the most advanced gun lube on the planet." Id. at *2-3 . FireClean LLC, a Virginia company, filed suit in Virginia alleging multiple counts of defamation.
The court applied the Fourth Circuit's analysis in Young , ultimately dismissing the case after concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The court rejected FireClean's argument that jurisdiction exists in the state where the plaintiff experienced reputational harm, despite the fact that: (1) Tuohy exchanged non-defamatory "emails, text messages, Facebook messages, and occasionally phone calls" with the company (in Virginia), (2) FireClean had sent Tuohy samples of its lubricant from Virginia, (3) 90 of the 9,181 people who "liked" Tuohy's allegedly defamatory Facebook posts were located in Virginia, and (4) some Virginia servers may have processed Tuohy's online content. Id. at *5. The court underscored that these contacts neither form the basis of the plaintiff's defamation claim, nor do they evince purposeful targeting of Virginia. Id. at *5-7. In relation to the Facebook "likes" specifically, the court held that such "contacts" "appear[ed] completely *494 'random, fortuitous, or attenuated.' " Id. at *6 (citation omitted); see Binion v. O'Neal , 95 F.Supp.3d 1055 , 1060 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (holding that posting offensive pictures of the plaintiff on Instagram and Twitter did not constitute the defendant's purposefully availing himself of the forum). The court explained that rather than demonstrating a manifested intent to direct electronic activity into Virginia, Tuohy's articles and comments were apparently directed to a "nationwide marketplace of consumers of firearms and associated equipment." Id.
Here, as in FireClean , Edwards has not made a prima facie showing that any of the communications alleged in paragraphs 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 63 specifically or purposefully targeted a particular forum, let alone Virginia. There is no factual matter in Edwards' pleadings suggesting that the authors of these communications took affirmative steps to direct these communications into Virginia or had any intent to target or focus on Virginia readers or otherwise avail themselves of the benefits and protections of the laws of Virginia. Nor are there any facts indicating that a Virginia resident, or anyone at Virginia Tech, read, "liked," reposted, or was even aware of the communications in question. Indeed, Edwards failed to present any evidence that any Virginia resident, for example, subscribed to, "friended," "retweeted," or "followed" any of the defendants' social media accounts or commented upon the posts in question, or that the accounts themselves had a geographic focus. Lastly, there are no facts suggesting that any of the communications were published from Virginia, routed through servers located in Virginia, or were of special interest to Virginia readers. While it may be the case that Edwards' reputation, professional or otherwise, was damaged in Virginia, as discussed above, the "Fourth Circuit ha[s] brushed back attempts to vest jurisdiction in a [s]tate based entirely or predominantly on the locus of the plaintiff's injury." Id. at *7.
The court, on this record, cannot determine with any certainty the nature of defendants' contacts with Virginia vis-à-vis the claims identified in the Supplemental Memorandum. 11 Furthermore, that the allegedly defamatory post in paragraph 63 mentions Virginia Tech by name is insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction over Mays as to that claim. The McNeil court reached a similar conclusion:
While the [d]efendants featured McNeil as the subject of these posts and even referenced Virginia in some of them, nothing indicates that the [d]efendants specifically directed the posts at Virginia or to Virginia social media users. Without more, the [c]ourt cannot find purposeful availment on those eleven claims. See FireClean, LLC v. Tuohy , No. 1:16cv0294, 2016 WL 3952093 , at *7 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2016) ("The mere fact that Tuohy referenced a Virginia company, its product, and its owners without mentioning Virginia does not demonstrate an intent to target Virginia, as even overt references to a [s]tate may be jurisdictionally insufficient if the focus of the article is elsewhere.").
2017 WL 2625069 , at *8.
In sum, although Edwards alleges that the defendants "directed numerous defamatory statements ... directly to Virginia *495 Tech via social media," there is no support, by affidavit or exhibit, indicative of incidental, let alone purposeful, targeting of Virginia Tech (or Virginia) as to the claims in paragraphs 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 63. 12 Neither the statements themselves nor the social media platforms from which they were published uniquely target Virginia or would have inherently included a substantial number of Virginia residents or businesses. With respect to the two keynote presentations referenced in paragraph 53, Edwards does not indicate where Lambrindiou made these presentations, and the publication by a third-party attendee of whatever defamatory statements were ostensibly made during those presentations, as previously discussed, is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. See Headstrong Corp. v. Jha , No. CIVA 305CV813-HEH, 2007 WL 1238621 , at *4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 2007) (no personal jurisdiction where defamatory emails were merely re-published in Virginia "after being forwarded by innumerable individuals from India across the world"). Fourth Circuit precedent applying the Calder test leads inexorably to the conclusion that the exercise of jurisdiction over these claims is inappropriate. To the extent Edwards bases Count I and Count II on statements alleged in paragraphs 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 63, the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. These claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. With that, the sole remaining source of liability are the allegedly defamatory statements contained in the Letter.
C.
Notwithstanding the dismissal of the claims above, the court will exercise specific jurisdiction over Mays as to the communication (and statements contained therein) "at the heart of this case," namely the Letter sent via email to Timothy Sands, the president of Virginia Tech. ECF No. 21, at 4. Here, Edwards' averments satisfy the three-part test articulated by the Fourth Circuit allowing the exercise of jurisdiction in the Internet context. With respect to the first prong-direction of electronic activity in the forum-Edwards avers that the "defendants each, both individually and acting as conspirators in concert and together, and as members and representatives of a non-profit organization known as the Campaign for Lead Free Water, participated in drafting, signing, electronically communicating and/or mailing" the Letter to Edwards' employer, Virginia Tech. ECF No. 9, at 2. More specifically, Edwards claims that the Letter was sent to the president of Virginia Tech, Timothy Sands, (1) via email to president@vt.edu, and (2) via Twitter in a tweet to the "handle" @VTSandsman. Id. at 5. With respect to the second prong, Edwards'
*496 pleadings also adequately show that the email and accompanying Letter, on their face, evince a manifest intent to target Virginia Tech. Lastly, Edwards has adequately alleged that the Letter "creates ... a potential cause of action [for defamation] cognizable" in Virginia. Id.
It is well established that transmission into the forum state of a communication can constitute purposeful availment if the content of that communication directly gives rise to an intentional tort cause of action. Here, the defamation claim arising from the Letter sent to the president of Virginia Tech, like the telephone call and email alleged in Count 5 in McNeil , manifests an intent to engage in interactions within Virginia. The Letter was clearly directed and "expressly aim[ed]" at a Virginia resident with the intent to effectuate an outcome in Virginia which, according to Edwards, was to "attack and damage [his] professional reputation" and "discredit [his] work in his professional capacity as an employee of a University owned by the Commonwealth [of Virginia]." ECF No. 21, at 29. Where an allegedly defamatory communication has been sent to particular recipient, courts have been willing to exercise specific jurisdiction. Indeed, cases involving analogues to emails, such as faxes, phone calls, and letters made or sent by out-of-state defendants to forum residents are routinely held to support specific jurisdiction when they directly give rise to the cause of action. See, e.g. , Neal v. Janssen , 270 F.3d 328 , 332 (6th Cir. 2001) ; Oriental Trading Co. v. Firetti , 236 F.3d 938 , 943 (8th Cir. 2001) ; Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Brandt , 195 F.3d 208 , 212-13 (5th Cir. 1999).
While case law involving defamation-by-email is less plentiful, several district courts have exercised specific jurisdiction over out-of-state emailers. See, e.g. , Aitken v. Commc'ns Workers of Am. , 496 F.Supp.2d 653 , 660-61 (E.D. Va. 2007) (holding specific jurisdiction is proper where the "causes of action are directly related to the transmission of the allegedly tortious emails"); Middlebrook v. Anderson , No. Civ. A. 3:04-CV-2294, 2005 WL 350578 , at *3-*4 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2005) (citing several decisions recognizing specific jurisdiction based, at least in part, on emails sent into forum state); Mark Hanby Ministries, Inc. v. Lubet , No. 1:06-CV-114, 2007 WL 1004169 , at *11 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 30, 2007) ; Long v. Grafton Exec. Search, LLC , 263 F.Supp.2d 1085 , 1089 (N.D. Tex. 2003) (defendant sent defamatory email to employment agency in Texas); Zidon v. Pickrell , 344 F.Supp.2d 624 , 632 (D.N.D. 2004) (defendant particularly and directly targeted the forum with, inter alia , emails).
In their motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction, defendants argue that their alleged actions were "not predicated upon [Edwards'] work, acts or relationship with [Virginia] nor did they seek to effectuate an outcome in Virginia." ECF No. 13, at 40. Instead, the defendants contend that the Letter focused on Edwards' acts or omissions in Michigan, "in his capacity as a de facto agent of the state of Michigan and the federal government." Id. at 5, 40. Further, they claim that the only jurisdictionally salient acts are the "transmission of one or two tweets or emails from outside [Virginia]" that went to dozens of individuals and organizations within the scientific and engineering communities writ large, of which Virginia Tech is only one institution out of many. Id. In short, the defendants assert that there was no purposeful availment, and that any tortious injury in Virginia was, at most, incidental.
The record, however, indicates that the sender(s) of the email (and Letter) specifically contemplated an "effect" in Virginia.
*497 The email containing the Letter was specifically addressed to the president of Virginia Tech, and requested that "you," (president of Virginia Tech), (1) "send representatives to Flint as soon as possible for a meeting ... to hear directly from us about our experiences with Mr. Edwards," and (2) conduct an investigation into Edwards' conduct and "the harm his actions have caused." ECF No. 9-1. Thus, while it may have been the intention of the sender(s) to affect Edwards' conduct primarily as it relates to Flint, Michigan, there was clearly an intent to also affect Edwards at Virginia Tech. Indeed, the Letter, which paints a highly unflattering picture of Edwards, closes with the following statement: "We are reaching out to you, key representatives of the scientific and engineering communities who keep awarding and rewarding Mr. Edwards for his behavior, because we need full protection from Mr. Edwards immediately. We also need an immediate investigation...." Id. These statements clearly contemplate that some action be taken in Virginia by Virginia Tech to address Edwards' alleged misbehavior.
The argument that "one or two tweets or emails" is insufficient to establish purposeful availment is, as discussed above, without merit. In their own motion, the defendants concede that the "touchstone of this [jurisdictional] analysis is the quality, as opposed to quantity, of the contacts with the forum," such that "even a single contact may be sufficient" to satisfy minimum contacts. ECF No. 13, at 39 (citing Carefirst , 334 F.3d at 397 ); see McGee v. Int'l Life Ins. Co. , 355 U.S. 220 , 223-24, 78 S.Ct. 199 , 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957) (recognizing jurisdiction based on defendant's single contact with forum state). With respect to the Letter specifically, its transmission was not a "random, fortuitous, or attenuated" contact with Virginia, nor was the Letter "simply place[d] on the Internet" in a passive manner. See ALS Scan , 293 F.3d at 714 (citation omitted). In light of the targeted nature of the email sent directly to the president of a university located in Virginia, and given the potential consequences to Edwards' career and contemplated "effect" of the email, this transmission suffices to sustain a finding of purposeful availment as to whatever defamatory statements are connected with this communication only.
Having established that whomever sent the Letter via email to the president of Virginia Tech did so purposefully, i.e. , with the manifest intent that some action be taken in Virginia, and that said transmission creates a potential cause of action cognizable in Virginia, the question then becomes whether Edwards has adequately connected each of the defendants to the transmission in question. In connection with Mays, Edwards specifically alleges that "[p]ublicly available metadata from the Microsoft W[ord] document of the defamatory Letter ... indicates the Letter was saved on and distributed from ... Melissa Mays' computer (the Letter may have also been saved on and distributed from other defendants' computers)." Id. at 23. Edwards also avers that Mays "first created and employed [the] 'dumb and dirty' catchphrase [redolent of language found in the Letter] when she attacked Edwards in [a] New York Times Magazine article" published in 2016. Id. at 25. Lastly, Edwards' Exhibit 1 indicates that Mays was a signatory to the Letter. While it is true, of course, that metadata suggesting the Letter was saved on Mays' computer does not prove definitively that it was also distributed from her computer, the allegations circumstantially connecting to her to its transmission, construed in the light most favorable to Edwards, suffice, if only just barely, to support the court's finding *498 that Edwards has carried his burden as to Mays.
Edwards' allegations connecting Schwartz and Lambrinidou to the transmission of the Letter, however, are, as one court put it, "gossamer thin and reed slender." Clark v. Milam , 830 F.Supp. 316 , 324 (S.D.W. Va. 1993). His contention that the defendants, "both individually and acting as conspirators in concert and together ... participated in ... electronically communicating and/or mailing a damaging defamatory and tortious letter and email" to Virginia Tech is factually unsupported. See Gillison v. Lead Express. Inc. , No. 3:16CV41, 2018 WL 6537151 , at *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2018) (citing Machulsky v. HaIl , 210 F.Supp.2d 531 , 537 (D.N.J. 2002) for the proposition that "[a]t no point may a plaintiff rely on the bare pleadings alone in order to withstand a defendant's ... motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction" (citation omitted) ). Indeed, Edwards concedes that the Letter only "may have ... been saved on and distributed from other defendants' computers." ECF No. 9, at 23. To compensate for factual deficiencies as to these two defendants, Edwards quotes an article in the East Village Magazine explaining that "the origins of the Letter were 'strategically cloaked a little bit because the idea is to avoid being associated too closely with any one individual or individuals.' " Id. at 12. He further claims that an anonymous Facebook page and website (Flintcomplaints.com) were created to disseminate the Letter and that at some point a post on the Facebook page indicated that the Letter was "crafted for us," referring to Flint residents. Id. From these indeterminate allegations, Edwards asks the court to infer and/or speculate that Schwartz and Lambrinidou were not only involved in drafting the Letter, but in transmitting it to Virginia Tech. This is neither a reasonable inference nor one which the court is willing to make on this record. The motion to dismiss Schwartz and Lambrinidou for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED . 13
D.
Finally, "even assuming the requisite minimum contacts between [Virginia] and [Mays], notions of fair play and substantial justice [must not] counsel against jurisdiction." Foster v. Arletty Sarl , 278 F.3d 409 , 415 (4th Cir. 2002). Indeed, the exercise of personal jurisdiction must be "constitutionally reasonable." Christian Sci. Bd. of Dirs. of First Church of Christ. Scientist v. Nolan , 259 F.3d 209 , 216 (4th Cir. 2001). Typically, such an analysis "ensures that litigation is not so gravely difficult and inconvenient as to place the defendant at a severe disadvantage in comparison to his opponent." CFA Inst. v. Inst. of Chartered Fin. Analysts of India , 551 F.3d 285 , 296 (4th Cir. 2009). When determining the reasonableness issue, courts examine (1) the defendant's burden, (2) the forum state's interests, (3) the plaintiff's interest in convenient and effective relief, (4) the judicial system's interest in efficient resolution of controversies, and (5) the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Viam Corp. v. Iowa Exp.-Imp. Trading Co. , 84 F.3d 424 , 429 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).
*499 Mindful of these considerations, the court finds its exercise of jurisdiction as to Mays would comport with "fair play and substantial justice," i.e. , it is constitutionally reasonable. Int'l Shoe , 326 U.S. at 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154 . The court already noted that there was nothing "random, fortuitous, or attenuated" about the transmission of the Letter to Virginia Tech. See Revell v. Lidov , 317 F.3d 467 , 476 (5th Cir. 2002) ("Fair play and substantial justice" is a fairness inquiry that "captures the reasonableness of hauling a defendant from [her] home state before the court of a sister state; in the main a pragmatic account of reasonable expectations - if you are going to pick a fight in Texas, it is reasonable to expect that it be settled there."). Virginia has a strong interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents, including Edwards, who is also an employee of a public research university located in Virginia. Edwards also has an interest in litigating in his home state, and his interest in effective and efficient litigation is also satisfied in Virginia. The burden placed upon Mays in litigating in Virginia simply is not so great as to make unfair on that basis alone the exercise of jurisdiction. Lastly, the judicial system's interest in efficient litigation is also served by litigating defamation cases in the state where the statements were clearly directed and in which an "effect" was clearly contemplated. Mays has not met her burden of presenting other considerations that would make it unreasonable for the court to assert jurisdiction. Thus, the court holds that it may exercise specific jurisdiction over Mays vis-à-vis the allegedly defamatory statements contained in the Letter only. The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED to this extent. The court will proceed to the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
III.
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint; it does not generally resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses. Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin , 980 F.2d 943 , 952 (4th Cir. 1992). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662 , 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544 , 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ); see also Venkatraman v. REI Sys., Inc. , 417 F.3d 418 , 420 (4th Cir. 2005) ("In considering a motion to dismiss, we accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff").
A complaint establishes facial plausibility "once the factual content of a complaint allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com. Inc. , 591 F.3d 250 , 256 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 ). Therefore, the complaint need not include "detailed factual allegations" as long as it pleads "sufficient facts to allow a court, drawing on judicial experience and common sense, to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct." Id. However, "naked assertions of wrongdoing necessitate some factual enhancement within the complaint to cross the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Francis v. Giacomelli , 588 F.3d 186 , 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). While a court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations, the same is not true for legal conclusions. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a *500 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 .
The importance of "evaluat[ing] complaints early in the process" in response to Rule 12(b)(6) motions has been emphasized by the United States Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit as a way to deal with "the recognized problems created by 'strike suits' and the high costs of frivolous litigation." Arthur v. Offit , No. CIV.A. 01:09-CV-1398, 2010 WL 883745 , at *3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2010) (citing Francis , 588 F.3d at 193 ). Indeed, because the defense of baseless defamation claims imposes an additional cost, in the form of potentially deterred speech, federal courts have historically given close scrutiny to pleadings in libel actions. Id. (citing 5B Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure 3d § 1357 ("When the claim alleged is a traditionally disfavored 'cause of action,' such as ... libel, or slander, the courts [tend] to construe the complaint by a somewhat stricter standard and [are] more inclined to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.") ). Therefore, "courts in Virginia and the Fourth Circuit routinely dismiss at the outset defamation claims that are based on constitutionally protected speech...." Id.
A.
The court must first determine what documents it may consider before turning to the merits of the motion to dismiss. In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint in connection with a motion to dismiss, a court ordinarily "may not consider any documents that are outside of the complaint, or not expressly incorporated therein...." Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville , 708 F.3d 549 , 557 (4th Cir. 2013) ; see also Bosiger v. U.S. Airways , 510 F.3d 442 , 450 (4th Cir. 2007). In other words, the court's analysis at the motion to dismiss stage is typically informed and constrained by the four corners of the complaint. CACI Int'l, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. , 566 F.3d 150 , 154 (4th Cir. 2009). There are two limited exceptions allowing a court to consider documents beyond the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. Goldfarb v. Mayor & City Council of Balt. , 791 F.3d 500 , 508 (4th Cir. 2015). The first exception permits a court to properly consider documents that are "explicitly incorporated into the complaint by reference and those attached to the complaint as exhibits...." 14 Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd. , 822 F.3d 159 , 166 (4th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted); see U.S. ex rel. Oberg v. Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Assistance Agency , 745 F.3d 131 , 136 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Under the second exception, a court may "consider a document submitted by the movant that was not attached to or expressly incorporated in a complaint, so long as the document was integral to the complaint and there is no dispute about the document's authenticity." Goines , 822 F.3d at 166 (citations omitted). To be "integral," a document must be one "that by its 'very existence, and not the mere information it contains, gives rise to the legal rights asserted.' "
*501 Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc. v. Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC , 794 F.Supp.2d 602 , 611 (D. Md. 2011). In a case cited approvingly by the Fourth Circuit concerning the latter exception, the Third Circuit explains:
The rationale underlying this exception is that the primary problem raised by looking to documents outside the complaint-lack of notice to the plaintiff-is dissipated "[w]here plaintiff has actual notice ... and has relied upon these documents in framing the complaint." What the rule seeks to prevent is the situation in which a plaintiff is able to maintain a claim of fraud by extracting an isolated statement from a document and placing it in the complaint, even though if the statement were examined in the full context of the document, it would be clear that the statement was not fraudulent.
Am. Chiropractic Ass'n v. Trigon Healthcare, Inc. , 367 F.3d 212 , 234 (4th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
The only exhibits attached by Edwards are the three versions of the Letter described above. The defendants, on the other hand, attached numerous documents (Exhibits 1-7) that were referred to, albeit oftentimes only obliquely or cursorily, in Edwards' pleadings. 15 The defendants also urge the court to take judicial notice of numerous extrinsic documents, including a variety of online newspaper articles about the Flint water crisis, law review articles, and other miscellaneous literature. Edwards concedes that "in certain circumstances the [c]ourt may take judicial notice or rely on documents referred to in a complaint when deciding a motion to dismiss." ECF No. 21, at 25-26. However, Edwards argues that the materials proffered by the defendants, and the defendants' factual arguments that certain allegedly defamatory statements are substantially true, are untimely and must be raised at trial or summary judgment. Id. at 2.
Except for Exhibit 2, the court finds either that it need not or it would be inappropriate to consider the aforementioned exhibits and materials at the motion to dismiss stage. See Goines , 822 F.3d at 166 (citing Sira v. Morton , 380 F.3d 57 , 67 (2d Cir. 2004) ("Limited quotation from or reference to documents that may constitute relevant evidence in a case is not enough to incorporate those documents, wholesale, into the complaint.") ); Smith v. Hogan , 794 F.3d 249 , 255 (2d Cir. 2015) (document with "no independent legal significance to [plaintiff's] claim" was not integral to complaint); see also Corbett v. Duerring , 780 F.Supp.2d 486 , 494 (S.D.W. Va. 2011) (holding that "[a]though the parties have offered multiple newspaper articles as exhibits, the court cannot consider or take judicial notice of these articles on a ... motion to dismiss"); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil , 887 F.2d 1236 , 1239 (4th Cir. 1989) (noting that "[t]he most frequent use of judicial notice of ascertainable facts is in noticing the content of court records"). In regard to defendants' Exhibit 2, however, the court finds that this document, containing a transcript of remarks Edwards made during a presentation titled "Truth Seeking in an Age of Tribalism: Lessons from *502 the Flint Water Crisis," is integral to the pleadings and incorporated by reference.
Notably, and as preliminary matter, Edwards does not challenge the veracity or authenticity of any the material submitted by the defendants; rather, he "contests [d]efendants' interpretation, spin, selective quotations, and arguments made in reference to these documents," and "adamantly disagrees with the factual import [they] assign to these documents." ECF No. 21, at 2, 26. Edwards does not submit that the transcript itself, active hyperlinks to which are featured in multiple versions of the Letter submitted in his pleadings, misquoted or otherwise inaccurately characterized his remarks. The transcript appears to be a verbatim record of Edwards' statements during a presentation at Swarthmore College. 16 In any event, Edwards himself explicitly references and relies on the transcript in support of his general claim that the defendants "themselves provided links to documents (including audio recordings and transcripts) that were inconsistent with their defamatory statements." Id. at 4. More specifically, Edwards' relies on the contents of Exhibit 2 to buttress his claim of actual malice (and falsity) vis-à-vis allegedly defamatory statements contained in paragraph 13(h), stating, "[t]he word 'tribal' never appears in the transcript of [his] presentation that is referred to in the Letter...." ECF No. 9, at 27. Edwards also explicitly appeals to "the context of the entire Letter and the circumstances of [its] publication" in support of the claim that paragraph 13(h) would be understood by an "objective reader" to imply he is "racist, bigoted, and/or prejudiced against minorities and/or poor individuals." Id. at 11. In urging the court consider paragraph 13(h) in "the context of the entire Letter," Edwards naturally invites consideration of the transcript, which is part of that context. See Adelson v. Harris , 973 F.Supp.2d 467 , 484 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd , 876 F.3d 413 (2d Cir. 2017) (rejecting defendant's argument that a hyperlink differs from a footnote because it is not within the document's "four corners" as "formalism that is misplaced in Internet defamation law"). For the foregoing reasons, the court may consider Exhibit 2 without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.
B.
This court has diversity jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 , and as such, must apply Virginia's choice-of-law rules. Cretella v. Kuzminski , 3:08-CV-109, 2008 WL 2227605 , at *2 (E.D. Va. May 29, 2008) ; see also Pa. Emp., Benefit Trust Fund v. Zeneca, Inc. , 710 F.Supp.2d 458 , 466 (D. Del. 2010) (noting that before addressing a motion to dismiss, "the [c]ourt must first resolve the choice of law question to determine the applicable law relevant to each [claim]"). To determine the governing law in a defamation case, Virginia applies the lex loci delicti commissi rule, that is, the law of the place of the wrong. Fluor Enters. v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Sys. Ams. , 2018 WL 3016286 , at *3, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100934 , at *8 (E.D. Va. June 15, 2018). In defamation cases, Virginia courts apply the substantive law of the state where the defamatory statements were first published.
*503 See Lapkoff v. Wilks , 969 F.2d 78 , 81 (4th Cir. 1992) (applying Virginia law). When the alleged defamation is executed via email correspondence, the place of publication is dictated by the place where the email was opened and read. Galustian v. Peter , 561 F.Supp.2d 559 , 565 (E.D. Va. 2008), rev' in part on other grounds , 591 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2010).
Edwards has not specifically alleged where the May 10, 2018 email was opened and read. In Velocity Micro, Inc. v. J.A.Z. Mktg., Inc. , No. 3:11-CV-473, 2012 WL 3017870 , at *6 (E.D. Va. July 23, 2012), the district court confronted an analogous deficiency in the plaintiff's pleadings. The court held that although "J.A.Z. has not alleged with specificity where the email was opened and read ... it is probable that, as a Minnesota corporation, it occurred in Minnesota." Id. The court further held that "[a]s J.A.Z. ... has not pled for the adoption of another state's defamation laws, this court applies the relevant Minnesota law governing defamation." Id.
Here, because Virginia is where Virginia Tech maintains its principal place of business, and because the email containing the Letter was sent to a Virginia Tech administrator, it is, applying the reasoning from Velocity , "probable" that publication occurred in Virginia. Further, as in Velocity , the parties have not pled for the adoption of another state's defamation laws. Therefore, this court applies the relevant Virginia law governing defamation. 17 The court's analysis must also include considerations of federal law, because, as will be discussed below, the requirement that an allegedly defamatory statement be of fact, rather than opinion, flows from the First Amendment. See Snyder v. Phelps , 580 F.3d 206 , 217-18 (4th Cir. 2009), aff'd , 562 U.S. 443 , 131 S.Ct. 1207 , 179 L.Ed.2d 172 (2011) ("It is well established that tort liability under state law, even in the context of litigation between private parties, is circumscribed by the First Amendment.").
C.
To state a claim for defamation under Virginia law, a plaintiff must allege: (1) publication of (2) an actionable statement with (3) the requisite intent. Schaecher v. Bouffault , 290 Va. 83 , 91, 772 S.E.2d 589 , 594 (2015) (citing Tharpe v. Saunders , 285 Va. 476 , 480, 737 S.E.2d 890 , 892 (2013) ). In Virginia, a statement is defamatory per se if it "imputes an unfitness to perform the duties of a job or a lack of integrity in the performance of the duties" or "prejudices the party in [his or] her profession or trade." Yeagle v. Collegiate Times , 255 Va. 293 , 297, 497 S.E.2d 136 , 138 (1998) (citing Fleming v. Moore , 221 Va. 884 , 889, 275 S.E.2d 632 , 635 (1981) ); see also Besen v. Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, Inc. , No. 3:12cv204, 2012 WL 1440183 , at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 25, 2012). If a plaintiff proves defamation per se, "Virginia law presumes that the plaintiff suffered actual damage to its reputation and, therefore, [the plaintiff] does not have to present proof of such damages." Swengler v. ITT Corp. Electro-Optical, Prods. Div. , 993 F.2d 1063 , 1071 (4th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).
The first element-whether there was a publication-is not seriously in dispute. The second and third elements, however, are disputed. The second element of a defamation claim in Virginia requires an "actionable statement." Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc. , 993 F.2d 1087 , 1092 (4th Cir. 1993). To be "actionable," a statement *504 must be not only false, but also defamatory, that is, it must "tend[ ] so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him." Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 559 ). "[M]erely offensive or unpleasant statements" are not defamatory; rather, defamatory statements "are those that make the plaintiff appear odious; infamous, or ridiculous." Id. ; see also Robert D. Sack, Libel, Slander and Related Problems § 2.4.1 (1980) ("There is common agreement that a communication that is merely unflattering, annoying, irksome, or embarrassing, or that hurts the plaintiff's feelings, without more, is not actionable."). In order for a statement to be potentially false, it must also be factual. See Tharpe , 285 Va. at 476 , 737 S.E.2d at 893 . Therefore, "statements of opinion are generally not actionable because such statements cannot be objectively characterized as true or false." Jordan v. Kollman , 269 Va. 569 , 575-76, 612 S.E.2d 203 , 206 (2005). Virginia's highest court has stated that "speech which does not contain a provably false factual connotation, or statements which cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about a person[,] cannot form the basis of a common law defamation action." Yeagle , 255 Va. at 293 , 497 S.E.2d at 137 (1998).
Virginia law also recognizes defamation per quod, i.e. , defamation by implication. See, e.g. , Pendleton v. Newsome , 290 Va. 162 , 172, 772 S.E.2d 759 , 763 (2015) ("In Webb , we reiterated that Virginia law recognizes a claim for defamation by inference, implication or insinuation."). In order to state a claim for defamation by implication, a plaintiff must allege: "(1) that the defendants made the statements alleged in the complaint, (2) that the statements, even if facially true, were designed and intended by the defendants to imply [the defamatory meaning], (3) that in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time they were made, the statements conveyed that defamatory implication to those who heard or read them, and (4) that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result." Id. "In determining whether words and statements complained of in the case are reasonably capable of the meaning ascribed to them by innuendo, every fair inference that may be drawn from the pleadings must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor." Webb v. Virginian-Pilot Media Cos., LLC , 287 Va. 84 , 89-90, 752 S.E.2d 808 , 811 (2014). That said, "the meaning of the alleged defamatory language cannot, by innuendo, be extended beyond its ordinary and common acceptation." Carwile v. Richmond Newspapers , 196 Va. 1 , 82 S.E.2d 588 , 591-92 (1954). Indeed, a plaintiff may not extrapolate beyond the "plain and natural" meaning of words. Id. It is for the court to decide (1) whether a statement has a provably false factual connotation and (2) whether a statement is capable of having a defamatory meaning injurious to the plaintiff's reputation. See CACI Premier Tech., Inc. v. Rhodes , 536 F.3d 280 , 294 (4th Cir. 2008).
While it is well-established that expressions of opinion are generally protected, determining whether a given statement is opinion or fact "presents oftentimes nettlesome problems ... as the evanescent distinction may be hazy at times." Carto v. Buckley , 649 F.Supp. 502 , 506 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. , 497 U.S. 1 , 110 S.Ct. 2695 , 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990), the Supreme Court described two subcategories of speech protected by the First Amendment. The first involves statements that are not "provable as false," meaning the language cannot be proved true or false by a "core of objective evidence" or by reference to an "objectively verifiable event."
*505 Id. at 21-22 , 110 S.Ct. 2695 . In other words, a statement is not actionable unless it asserts a demonstrably false fact "subject to objective verification." Biospherics, Inc. v. Forbes, Inc. , 151 F.3d 180 , 184 (4th Cir. 1998). This category also involves statements of subjective belief based on disclosed facts, as when "bases for the ... conclusion are fully disclosed, no reasonable reader would consider the [statement] [as] anything but the opinion of the author drawn from the circumstances related." Chapin , 993 F.2d at 1093 ; see Biospherics , 151 F.3d at 185 (collecting cases). The second category described in Milkovich involves statements that "cannot reasonably [be] interpreted as stating actual facts," meaning "loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language which would negate the impression that the writer was seriously maintaining" an actual fact, or where the "general tenor" negates the impression that actual facts are being asserted. 497 U.S. at 20 -21 , 110 S.Ct. 2695 (quoting Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell , 485 U.S. 46 , 50, 108 S.Ct. 876 , 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988) ). This second safeguard includes protection for "rhetorical hyperbole" and "vigorous epithet." Id. at 17, 21, 110 S.Ct. 2695 ; see CACI , 536 F.3d at 301-02 (endorsing a district court holding that a statement remains protected if it is "clear to all reasonable listeners that [the statement is] offered ... as exaggerated rhetoric intended to spark the debate").
The third element of defamation is intent. The requisite level of intent associated with a defamation action varies depending upon the plaintiff's status as a "public figure," a "private figure," or a "limited-purpose public figure." Spencer v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. , No. CIV. 3:08CV00591, 2009 WL 47111 , at *4 (E.D. Va. Jan. 6, 2009). In certain circumstances, constitutional law treats private citizens, who are not otherwise public figures, as public figures for the purpose of comment on a particular public controversy. See, e.g. , Hutchinson v. Proxmire , 443 U.S. 111 , 134-35, 99 S.Ct. 2675 , 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979) ; Wolston v. Reader's Digest Assoc. , 443 U.S. 157 , 164-68, 99 S.Ct. 2701 , 61 L.Ed.2d 450 (1979).
Limited-purpose public figures are those who "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. , 418 U.S. 323 , 351, 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). In voluntarily injecting themselves into a particular controversy, these individuals thereby become public figures for a limited range of issues. Id. 361 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 . These individuals are subject to the heightened "actual malice" intent standard for two reasons: (1) because of "their ability to resort to the 'self-help' remedy of rebuttal" by virtue of the fact that they "usually enjoy significantly greater access [to the media] than private individuals, which enable them to counter criticism and to expose the falsehood and fallacies of defamatory statements"; and (2) because they have "voluntarily exposed themselves to increased risk of injury from defamatory falsehood," and hence are "less deserving of protection." Foretich v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. , 37 F.3d 1541 , 1552 (4th Cir. 1994). The actual malice standard reflects our "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks" on public figures. N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254 , 270, 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). The question of whether a defamation plaintiff is a "limited-purpose public figure" is an issue of law. See *506 Reuber v. Food Chem. News, Inc. , 925 F.2d 703 , 708 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied , 501 U.S. 1212 , 111 S.Ct. 2814 , 115 L.Ed.2d 986 (1991).
D.
Whether a plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure depends upon "the nature and extent of [the] individual's participation in the particular controversy giving rise to the defamation." Gertz , 418 U.S. at 352 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 . The Fourth Circuit has set forth five factors to guide lower courts in this inquiry, including whether: "(1) the plaintiff had access to channels of effective communication; (2) the plaintiff voluntarily assumed a role of special prominence in a public controversy; (3) the plaintiff sought to influence the resolution or outcome of the controversy; (4) the controversy existed prior to the publication of the defamatory statements; and (5) the plaintiff retained public figure status at the time of the alleged defamation." See Fitzgerald v. Penthouse Int'l, Ltd. , 691 F.2d 666 , 668 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied , 460 U.S. 1024 , 103 S.Ct. 1277 , 75 L.Ed.2d 497 (1983). Typically, the second and third Fitzgerald factors are combined into what is often considered the dispositive question at the core of the inquiry: "whether the plaintiff had voluntarily assumed a role of special prominence in a public controversy by attempting to influence the outcome." Id.
Though Edwards refused to stipulate during the October 29, 2018 hearing that he qualifies, at the very least, as a limited-purpose public figure, the court easily concludes that this status is appropriate, and that his claims should be scrutinized according to the New York Times "actual malice" standard. It can hardly be debated that the allegedly defamatory statements giving rise to this matter are related to an existing public controversy - that is, "a real dispute, the outcome of which affects the general public or some segment of it in an appreciable way." Foretich , 37 F.3d at 1554 (quoting Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publ'ns, Inc. , 627 F.2d 1287 , 1296 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied , 449 U.S. 898 , 101 S.Ct. 266 , 66 L.Ed.2d 128 (1980) ). The Flint water crisis (and the advocacy-related disputes arising therefrom) plainly qualifies as a public controversy as there are "foreseeable and substantial ramifications for persons" beyond the litigants in this suit. Waldbaum , 627 F.2d at 1296 . Likewise, it is pellucidly clear that Edwards had "access to channels of effective communication," as demonstrated the (1) pervasive media coverage of his work by national newspapers, such as the New York Times , and local publications, including East Village Magazine , (2) the numerous recognitions Edwards received from large national magazines, such as Time Magazine , and (3) his apparent operation of and/or contribution to various social media platforms and websites. ECF No. 9, at 3, 13, 27. 18
In 2004, Time Magazine recognized Edwards as among the four most important innovators in water around the world. Id. at 3. In 2016, Edwards was recognized: (1) again by Time Magazine as among the 100 most influential people in the world, (2) by Fortune Magazine as among the world's 50 greatest leaders, etc. Id. Edwards also received a White House presidential faculty fellowship in 1996 and other prestigious awards for his work in Flint and beyond. Id. Indeed, in 2016, Edwards claims that he was even "short-listed among Flint whisdeblowers as Time [ Magazine's ] person(s) of the year." Id. That same year, New York Times Magazine published a lengthy profile of Edwards. Id. at 17. Edwards *507 was also the subject of numerous other newspaper articles and testified in several high-profile congressional hearings and criminal cases in Michigan related to the Flint water crisis. Id. at 25. It cannot be said, given Edwards' public visibility, that his conduct did not inevitably invite public comment and attention.
Indeed, Edwards clearly "thrust[ ] ... his personality into the 'vortex' of [this] important public controversy." Curtis Publ'g. Co. v. Butts , 388 U.S. 130 , 155, 87 S.Ct. 1975 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967). Edwards, by his own admission, has assumed a role of special prominence in the Flint water controversy and has used his position to influence the resolution and outcome of this crisis. See Wells v. Liddy , 186 F.3d 505 , 534 (4th Cir. 1999) ; accord Chapin , 993 F.2d at 1092 n.4 (finding "plaintiffs' status as 'public figures' [to be] irretractably admitted on the face of the complaint" where the complaint "extol [led] [the plaintiffs'] nationwide charitable activities ..."). Moreover, the controversy, and Edwards' entry into it, clearly existed prior to the publication of the Letter on May 10, 2018. The challenged Letter was, in fact, responding directly to disputes arising out of Edwards' Flint-related advocacy work. Finally, as for the fifth Fitzgerald factor, the record demonstrates that Edwards retained his limited-purpose public figure status at the time of the alleged defamation. For the aforementioned reasons, Edwards qualifies, at a minimum, as a limited-purpose public figure required to show that the allegedly defamatory statements were made with knowing falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Curtis , 388 U.S. at 155 , 87 S.Ct. 1975 . 19
IV.
Under Virginia and federal law, Edwards has failed to state a claim for defamation upon which relief can be granted as to Count I and Count II. The court thoroughly reviewed the Letter as a whole and each of the allegedly defamatory statements in paragraphs 13(a) - 13(i) in the context in which they were made, as well as all of the parties' arguments. Many of the statements alleged in paragraph 13 plainly qualify as constitutionally protected opinion under Milkovich and its progeny because they are incapable of being proven true or false by a core objective evidence or are so tightly wrapped in loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language that they cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating or implying actual facts. Those few statements appearing to assert verifiable facts either lack the requisite defamatory sting, or are of such a character that a reasonable reader would recognize them as expressing only the speakers' subjective views on contested and emotionally-fraught matters of public concern. In assessing paragraphs 13(a) - 13(i), it is the task of the court not only to determine whether a statement is capable of a defamatory meaning, but also to "examine ... the statements in issue and the circumstances under which they were made to see whether they are of a character which the principles of the First Amendment ... protect." N.Y. Times , 376 U.S. at 285 , 84 S.Ct. 710 .
A.
Though the Supreme Court held in Milkovich that there is no "separate *508 constitutional privilege for 'opinion,' " as discussed above, a statement is constitutionally protected if it "does not contain a provably false factual connotation." 497 U.S. at 20 -21 , 110 S.Ct. 2695 . In determining whether a statement can be reasonably interpreted as declaring or implying a falsehood or containing a "provably false connotation," the Fourth Circuit has adopted the "thoughtfully elaborated" four-factor test from Ollman v. Evans , 750 F.2d 970 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied , 471 U.S. 1127 , 105 S.Ct. 2662 , 86 L.Ed.2d 278 (1985). See Potomac Valve & Fitting Inc. v. Crawford Fitting Co. , 829 F.2d 1280 , 1288-89 (4th Cir. 1987). These factors include: (1) the author or speaker's choice of words; (2) whether the challenged statement is capable of being objectively characterized as true or false; (3) the context of the challenged statement within the writing or speech as a whole; and (4) the broader social context into which the statement fits. 20 See Hanks v. WAVY Broad., LLC , No. 2:11CV439, 2012 WL 405065 , at *9 (E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2012) (citations omitted). The second factor is a minimum threshold issue that all plaintiffs must meet to sustain a cause of action - if words cannot be described as true or false, they are not actionable. Id. (citing Potomac Valve , 829 F.2d at 1287-88 ); see also Biospherics , 151 F.3d at 184 (recognizing that Milkovich , like Potomac Valve , placed "primary emphasis ... on verifiability of the statement"). 21
The Fourth Circuit makes clear that to appropriately construe a statement in light of what might reasonably have been understood therefrom, it is incumbent upon courts to look not just at the allegedly defamatory words themselves, but also at the context and general tenor of its message. See Snyder , 580 F.3d at 219 ; Biospherics , 151 F.3d at 184 . 22 This imperative derives from the court's "oblig[ation] to assess how an objective, reasonable reader would understand a challenged statement...." Id. Indeed, even if a statement is objectively verifiable, it "nevertheless qualifies as an 'opinion' if it is clear from any of the three remaining Ollman factors, individually or in conjunction, that a reasonable reader or listener would recognize its weakly substantiated or subjective character-and discount it accordingly." Hanks , 2012 WL 405065 , at *9 (citation omitted). It also *509 provides assurance that public debate will not suffer for lack of "imaginative expression" or the "rhetorical hyperbole" which has "traditionally added much to the discourse of our Nation." Milkovich , 497 U.S. at 20 , 110 S.Ct. 2695 . Finally, this imperative reflects "the reality that exaggeration and non-literal commentary have become an integral part of social discourse" and is "very much the coin of the modern realm." Levinsky's, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 127 F.3d 122 , 128 (1st Cir. 1997) ; compare Letter Carriers v. Austin , 418 U.S. 264 , 284-86, 94 S.Ct. 2770 , 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974) (holding that use of the word "traitor" to define a worker who crossed a picket line was non-actionable because no reasonable reader could believe the word was used literally in the context of a labor dispute) with Flamm v. Am. Ass'n of Univ. Women , 201 F.3d 144 , 147 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that "[e]xaggerated rhetoric may be commonplace in labor disputes, but a reasonable reader would not expect similar hyperbole in a straightforward directory of attorneys and other professionals ... [i]ndeed, the opposite is true" "in light of the inclusion of the statement in an otherwise fact-laden directory"). Turning to the facts of the present case, the court will apply the above Ollman factors to the Letter, and each of the statements specifically flagged by Edwards.
B.
With respect to the fourth factor-the broader social context into which the statements alleged in paragraphs 13(a) - 13(i) fit-Edwards concedes that the tortious conduct that is the gravamen of this litigation "occurred in the context of an ongoing public debate regarding the well-known water and public health crisis in Flint, Michigan," noting that the defendants "harbor severe animosity toward [him] due to differences arising from their involvement in the Flint water crisis." ECF 21, at 1, 11. Edwards asserts, however, that the presence of a public debate does not provide license to intentionally publish falsehoods injurious to his reputation. The court agrees on both points. It is self-evident that the disagreements between the parties, recapitulated in Letter, are inextricably intertwined with the highly publicized health crisis in Flint, Michigan. The extent of the contamination of Flint's municipal water supply, once revealed, drew national media coverage and generated an emotionally supercharged public discourse, of which the Letter and many of the social media posts by and between the parties may properly be considered a part. In January 2016, both the state of Michigan and the federal government declared states of emergency in Flint, Michigan, and the crisis led to numerous congressional hearings, partisan finger-pointing, and substantial litigation. 23 See In re Flint Water Cases , 329 F.Supp.3d 369 , 380 (E.D. Mich. 2018), vacated , (Nov. 9, 2018) ("To date, the crisis remains unresolved.... Lawsuits are now pending in at least seven different state and federal courts in Michigan.").
Edwards is also correct that notwithstanding a commitment to "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate on public issues, which may include "vehement, caustic, and sometimes sharp attacks," N.Y. Times Co. , 376 U.S. at 278 , 282 n.21, 292 n.30, 84 S.Ct. 710 , the presence of a controversy does not provides carte *510 blanche to publish falsehoods that impugn the reputation of another. That said, inasmuch as such a controversy informs the way in which a reasonable reader would interpret any given claim uttered in this context, the fact that the parties are "opposing partisans in a heated and emotional public health debate," ECF No. 22, at 21, shades every statement made in the Letter. See Underwager v. Channel 9 Austl. , 69 F.3d 361 , 366-67 (9th Cir. 1995) (observing that audience would likely view comments made in context of "heated debate" on a "highly controversial subject" regarding child witness reliability as "spirited critique" and "would expect emphatic language on both sides"). Edwards acknowledges that the acrimony between the parties derives from "differences regarding community activism," the defendants' belief that he "represents government interests and does not perform objective water testing," and disagreements regarding the "results and methods of Edwards' water testing" as well as his "public statements." ECF No. 9, at 15-16.
The parties each appear to operate or contribute to blogs and various social media accounts to advance their respective positions vis-à-vis the Flint water crisis and debate other advocacy-related issues. These same online media are also apparently being used by the parties to critique, ridicule, cast aspersions upon, and question each other's motives and/or intentions. In a series of emails and Facebooks posts to varied (or unspecified audiences), the defendants accuse Edwards of, among other things, (1) "being co-opted by the [s]tate," (2) promulgating an "imperial and colonial version of 'saving' us" by "belittling our knowledge, demands, organizing and mobilization in defense of our health," (3) engaging in conduct that "silences and erases the people who are suffering from the multiple contaminants," (4) " 'pimp[ing]' the disaster for personal and professional gain while ... compound[ing] our suffering by trotting us out when it is convenient" and fits Edwards' " 'hero' and 'rescue' story line," and (5) "arrogat[ing] power and credit for [himself] and [his] chosen band that rightly belonged to the people." Id. at 18-22. In response to these and other statements, Edwards and a student apparently published blog posts wherein they attempted to counter some of the accusations levelled against. Indeed, there appears to have been an extensive and acrimonious back-and-forth between the parties via email, text message, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media spanning several years. These exchanges and the statements above reflect a discourse devolved in mudslinging of the sort that is, regrettably, commonplace today.
Edwards' pleadings reveal that the extreme distrust between the parties spilled into the public sphere. In 2017, for example, Edwards states that New York Times Magazine published a profile article about him, in which defendants all made "negative and harmful statements regarding [him] to a reporter that were included in the article." Id. at 17. The publication of the Letter, and presumably its contents, was also covered in an article published by East Village Magazine. Id. at 12. Further, the Letter itself contains hyperlinks to online newspaper articles and posts from detroitnews.com, michiganradio.org, and theguardian.com, with headlines such as, "Edwards: Flint witness falsified research claims," "Scientific disagreements could affect special prosecutor's case in Flint water crisis," and "Flint lead tainted water ... safe to use," respectively. Id. at 9-1, at 2. Insofar as the controversy surrounding the Flint water crisis and the disputes between the parties over advocacy-related matters were known to the public, this backdrop is probative as to how a reasonable reader of the Letter, fully aware of *511 the biases and confrontational posture of the parties in relation to one another, would react to and interpret the statements contained in paragraphs 13(a) - 13(i). See Ollman , 750 F.2d at 983 ("It is one thing to be assailed as a corrupt public official by a soapbox orator and quite another to be labelled corrupt in a research monograph detailing the causes and cures of corruption in public service.").
With respect to the third Ollman factor-the context of the challenged statements within the writing as a whole-the Letter is replete with emotional and polemical language, rhetorical hyperbole, and unmistakable indicia of partisanship. Indeed, there is absolutely no pretense of objectivity or disinterestedness. The email in which the Letter was attached begins by requesting those to whom it is addressed "tell us where we can file a formal complaint against the behavior, since January 2016," of Marc Edwards, and states that the attached Letter is "our full complaint" expressing some of the signatories' "concerns." ECF No. 9-1, at 1. The Letter is organized around four points numbered accordingly: (1) "Violation of principle # 3 of the Jemez principles for democratic organizing," (2) "Obstruction of Flint's right for self-determination," (3) "Unsubstantiated defamation of Flint residents," and (4) "To our knowledge, there is no one in the scientific community overseeing Mr. Edwards' work or the way he uses his power over powerless residents." Id. at 1-4.
Under the first point, the authors express their frustration with Edwards about a formal complaint he allegedly filed against a Wayne State University professor. The authors claim that the complaint "does nothing to help the residents of Flint move toward recovery," "has caused more strife, stress and drama that we do not need, want or deserve," and was presented by Edwards as the grievances of Flint residents "without speaking to us first or securing our permission to take this action on our behalf." Id. at 1. The authors sarcastically state that the formal complaint filed against this professor, Shawn McElmurry, should have been titled "Marc Edwards v. Whomever He Chooses," and reaffirm that "Flint residents have their own voice and never asked [Edwards] to speak for us...." Id. They then state that Edwards' claims of representing Flint residents is "hollow," and "[t]hose who haven't figured this out yet should ask themselves why it is that Mr. Edwards' only evidence of working with 'the residents' is a tired show of the same group of 2-3 individuals who are embedded with Mr. Edwards and loyal to him." Id.
Under the second point, the authors state, among other things, that the "[r]esidents of Flint object to Mr. Edwards fighting his own petty and vicious fights against anyone and everyone he sees as a challenger or competitor ... all under the guise of 'protecting' and 'saving' us, or 'defending' science." Id. at 2. They further claim that many residents of Flint are "exhausted" with Edwards' "Hollywood antics - this is not Entertainment Tonight," and are fearful that Edwards' "glib, reckless, and egotistical conduct may hamper the ongoing criminal investigation into the Legionnaires deaths in our city, which we see as the only form of justice we might achieve." Id. Edwards' conduct, the authors claim, creates "additional and totally undeserved worry [that] suddenly adds to the stress and chaos we already feel." Id.
Under the third point, the authors take umbrage with several of Edwards' purported statements concerning bathing habits in Flint and express their disapproval of accusations Edwards allegedly leveled against those they consider allies to their cause in Flint and who provided Flint residents *512 with certain information about bacteria growth on filters. Id. The authors further criticize Edwards' alleged portrayal of them, stating that "we WANT science that addresses our questions, experiences, and needs," and that "[w]hat scares us is Mr. Edwards who uses his position as a scientist to misrepresent us and silence us." Id. 2-3.
Finally, under the fourth point, the authors, among other things, call on Edwards to focus "on our LIVES, our first-hand EXPERIENCES, our NEEDS, and on the fact that we are still suffering." Id. The Letter closes by requesting that "you, key representatives of the scientific and engineering communities," provide "full protection from Mr. Edwards immediately," an "immediate investigation" that puts their "voices at the center," and "a committee that that includes academics, professionals, and Environmental Justice leaders who have expertise in abuses of professional power against poisoned communities like Flint." Id. at 4.
Lastly, there is a definite and palpable current of exasperation throughout the Letter, as evidenced by use of capitalization to underscore words such as NEEDS, LIVES, EXPERIENCES, and statements such as (1) "WE are the ones who have always led and continue to lead the activism on the ground ... Mr. Edwards' work wouldn't be possible without US," and (2) "Mr. Edwards' choice to initiate drama distracts from the real suffering in Flint and needs to stop NOW." ECF No. 9-1, at 1-4. The emphasis on the first-person tense ("we," "us," "our") and exaggerated rhetoric (e.g., "this is not Entertainment Tonight," "Mr. Edwards v. Whomever He Chooses") put the reader on notice the Letter is an "inherently subjective enterprise." Ollman , 750 F.2d at 988 ; see McCabe v. Rattiner , 814 F.2d 839 , 843 (1st Cir. 1987) ("In the context of public debate over a matter of community concern, first person narrative articles ... are commonly understood to be attempts to influence th[e] public debate."). The sum effect of the format, tone, and content of the Letter is to make it unmistakably clear that its contents are of a partisan character, and that the statements therein are likely expressing opinions, rather than conveying facts.
The analysis, however, does not end there, for while signaling to readers to expect opinion, context alone does not render all statements automatically non-actionable. It is possible that a particular statement may imply an assertion of objective fact and thus constitute actionable defamation. The court will, as it must, proceed by assessing the allegedly defamatory statements contained in paragraphs 13(a) - 13(i) individually. The court will pay close attention, per the first and second Ollman factors, to whether the authors' choice of words supports or negates any impression that a challenged statement asserts or implies defamatory facts and to the question of verifiability. The latter requirement is especially important, as the Fourth Circuit has recognized that Milkovich placed "primary emphasis ... on verifiability of the statement." Chapin , 993 F.2d at 1093 (citation omitted). In Ollman , the court explained the significance of verifiability:
The reason for this inquiry is simple: a reader cannot rationally view an unverifiable statement as conveying actual facts. Lacking a clear method of verification with which to evaluate a statement ... the trier of fact may improperly tend to render a decision based upon approval or disapproval of the contents of the statement, its author, or its subject. [The] ... obvious potential for quashing or muting First Amendment activity looms large when juries attempt *513 to assess the truth of a statement that admits of no method of verification.
750 F.2d 970 , 981-82 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Indeed, "in the setting of litigation, the trier of fact obliged in a defamation action to assess the truth of an unverifiable statement will have considerable difficulty returning a verdict based upon anything but speculation." Id. at 970 .
(1) Paragraphs 13(a) and 13(i)
Paragraph 13(a)
Residents of Flint.... Also request that you send representatives to Flint as soon as possible for a meeting with us to hear directly from us about our experiences with Mr. Edwards and our call for an investigation into Mr. Edwards' conduct and the harm his actions have caused.
Paragraph 13(i)
We are reaching out to you, key representatives of the scientific and engineering communities who keep awarding and rewarding Mr. Edwards for his behavior, because we need full protection from Mr. Edwards immediately. We also need an immediate investigation that puts OUR voices at the center and demands evidence for all claims made by Mr. Edwards. We ask for a committee that includes academics, professionals, and Environmental Justice leaders who have expertise in abuses of professional power against poisoned communities like Flint.
Edwards complains that the above paragraphs, which bookend the body of the Letter and both call for investigations, contain factual statements and/or implications, inferences, or insinuations that, inter alia , Edwards is guilty of professional misconduct or other wrongful activity that warrants an investigation into his behavior, and that his professional misconduct has caused and is causing ongoing harm to the residents of Flint, Michigan, and other individuals who need "full protection" from Edwards' "abuses of professional power." ECF No. 9, at 8, 11. He further avers that these statements falsely state or imply that he lacks integrity and is unfit to perform his professional duties when, in fact, he is "not guilty of such misconduct and has not caused harm to the residents of Flint." Id. Finally, Edwards claims that "no individuals need protection from [him], [as he] does not abuse professional power." Id. at 11.
Whether the

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7253663. Public record. Not legal advice.