The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's defamation claim against him on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
The plaintiff alleged the defendant republished a defamatory email by replying to the original sender and potentially blind copying others.
The court held that replying only to the sender does not constitute publication or republication in defamation law.
Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to plead material facts supporting the bald allegation that the email was blind copied to third parties.
The motion was granted and the claim against the defendant was struck without leave to amend.