To injuryTo complaintTo combined counterclaim and answersFeedbackhome

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLESEX, ss. DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-12219-RGS

WILLIAM SILVERSTEIN, Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant

v.

MICROSYSTEMS SOFTWARE, INC., THE LEARNING COMPANY, INC.,
RICHARD GORGENS, DEBRA GORGENS, LARRY MASON,
Defendants-Counterclaim Plaintiff

 

PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM

The named counter-defendant William Silverstein hereby responds to the numbered paragraphs of counter-plaintiff's counterclaim.

1. Admitted.

2. Admitted.

3. Admitted.

4. Admitted.

5. Admitted that William Silverstein was terminated from his employment for taking a leave of absence from work, but otherwise denied.

6. William Silverstein is without sufficient information as to the specific method of TLC's acquisition of MSI to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 6, and calls upon the counter-plaintiffs for their proof.

7. Admitted that during and for a period after his employment at MSI William Silverstein maintained an Internet website entitled "Bill Silverstein's Home Page" and otherwise denies the allegations of paragraph 7.

8. Denied that William Silverstein's website contains false statements about the counter-plaintiffs.

9. Denied.

10. William Silverstein is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of paragraph 10.

First Defense

The Counterclaim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Second Defense

The statements made on the website are true.

Third Defense

The statements on the website were not published recklessly.

Fourth Defense

The statements on the website were not published with malice.

Fifth Defense

In December 1996 and January 1997, William Silverstein wrote to counter-plaintiff MSI asking for identification of any factual inaccuracies on the website. The January 1997 message was acknowledged, but no inaccuracies were identified. Therefore counter-plaintiffs MSI and TLC (as TLC has stipulated that the two corporations are managed as one) may not bring this suit claiming to have been harmed two years later.

Sixth Defense

The counter-plaintiff TLC was aware of the website for over a year, but has never objected to any information published on the website. Therefore TLC may not bring this suit claiming to have been harmed a year later.

Seventh Defense

The information on the website is based on documents filed with the court or administrative agencies in the course of litigation. The counter-plaintiff has no less right to discuss and comment on those documents and the underlying controversy without being sued for defamation than has any other individual or entity,

Eight Defense

The counter-plaintiffs have failed to mitigate damages.

Ninth Defense

The counter-plaintiffs have not incurred any damages.

Tenth Defense

The counter-plaintiffs have filed this counterclaim in retaliation for William Silverstein's having exercised his rights under ch. 151B and c. 152 of the Massachusetts General Laws and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, to intimidate him from exercising his rights, and thus constitutes a prohibited practice under those laws.



WHEREFORE William Silverstein requests that this Court:

Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM SILVERSTEIN
By his attorney,

 

Philip R. Olenick
BBO No. 378605
101 Tremont Street -- Suite 801
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 357-5660

December 21, 1998