S. Ct. Civ. No. 2010-0046

In a libel action brought by a Superior Court judge relating to articles and editorial content that were published by the defendant newspaper and written by the defendant authors, over a five year period, about the judge's opinions and his decision to retire, there was no error in the granting of a motion for judgment as a matter of law for the defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to allow a rational jury to find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence with regard to any of the contested articles, as required for the recovery of damages for defamatory falsehoods relating to official conduct of a public official. The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.