“Rachel Maddow, host of a show on MSNBC, ran a segment stating that OAN employee Kristen Rouz worked for OAN, but was ‘also being paid by the Russian government to produce government-funded pro-Putin propaganda for a Russian government funded propaganda outfit called Sputnik.’ Herring sued Maddow and related entities for defamation. Maddow filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which the district court granted.”

“The panel first addressed Herring’s argument that the district court should have considered five pieces of proffered evidence outside of the pleadings in determining whether to grant Maddow’s motion to strike. Because the motion to strike mounted a legal challenge, not a factual challenge, to Herring’s complaint, the panel held that Herring’s reliance on evidence outside of its complaint in defending against the anti-SLAPP motion was improper and inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Turning to the merits, the panel held that Maddow’s statement was well within the bounds of what qualified asProtected speech under the First Amendment. The challenged statement was an obvious exaggeration/cushioned within an undisputed news story. The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion. Finally, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because Herring never asked to amend, and if it had, amendment would have been futile” – Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling in Herring Networks v Maddow.