Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In evaluating a motion for summary judgment the Court must look beyond the pleadings and assess the proof to determine whether there is a genuine need for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). If Defendants carry their burden of showing there is an absence of evidence to support a claim then Plaintiff must demonstrate by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317, 324-25 (1986).

"On summary judgment, all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the parties opposing the motion." Hanover Ins. Co. v. American Engineering Co., 33 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586-88). Nevertheless, the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of Plaintiff's position is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.. 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986), The proper inquiry is whether the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for Plaintiff. Id. See generally, Street v. JC Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1476-80 (6th Cir. 1989).

In reviewing P&G and Dinsmore's motions for summary judgment on Amway's claim of tortious interference with actual and prospective business relations, several observations guide the Court's analysis. Although these observations will be more developed below, it is essential to address these observations right from the start because, notwithstanding the parties' assertions to the contrary, this is not a complicated case. This case has been over-prepared and over-litigated by Amway and P&G. It must be pared down to the real issues.(4)

The first observation that is crucial to the Court's analysis is that. at least with respect to Defendants P&G and Dinsmore, this is a tort action about speech. Amway's only allegations regarding P&G and Dinsmore are that they gave documents to Schwartz which Schwartz posted on his Internet website. While Amway contends that it is the wrongful nature of P&G's and Dinsmore's conduct, rather than their false speech. which is at the heart of Amway's tortious interference claim, Amway has not pointed to evidence that P&G and Dinsmore engaged in any wrongful conduct other than delivering documents to Schwartz, nor has Amway pointed to any evidence that it was injured by any non-speech related conduct by P&G and Dinsmore.

Amway has attempted to dodge the speech issue by asserting a conspiracy between P&G, Dinsmore and Schwartz. Amway recites a litany of conduct by Schwartz. and then asserts that this conduct is attributable to P&G and Dinsmore because they were all part of a conspiracy to destroy Amway. This brings the Court to the second legal conclusion. As more fully discussed below, the evidence of record does not support the finding of a conspiracy between P&G, Dinsmore and Schwartz.

Third, not every document allegedly provided by P&G and Dinsmore to Schwartz is at issue in this case.(5) Because Amway is alleging tortious interference with business relations. it is only the documents that were posted on the Schwartz website that are conceivably at issue in this case, because those were the only documents that were disseminated in such a way that they could reach current and potential distributors and interfere with their relationships with Amway.

Fourth, Amway attributes only 18 allegedly defamatory statements on the Schwartz website to P&G and Dinsmore. These statements come from the Texas complaint and the complaint filed in Setzer v. Amway, Case No. 6:86-1893-3 (D.S.C.) ("the Setzer case").

Fifth, there is no question of fact that all of the documents from P&G and Dinsmore that were posted on the web were publicly available court documents.

Sixth, none of the allegedly defamatory statements is new. Amway's sales, recruitment. and distribution methods have been highly successful, but they have also given rise to controversy. The question of Amway's being an illegal pyramid has been in the public forum for years, even before Schwartz began his website. The issue has been discussed in news articles, investigated by the FTC, and addressed in private lawsuits against Amway.(6) This observation is not made to excuse the repetition of a defamatory statement, but to put the entire controversy into perspective.

Seventh, Amway is a public figure.

Finally, this suit, like P&G's previous suits against Amway, is more about business competition and bad blood between the two corporations than about the spread of the Satanism rumor or Schwartz's website attacks on Amway. The inordinate attention the parties have devoted to this case is a reflection of the animosity between these parties and their penchant for rehashing their history of grievances against each other. rather than the legal significance of the present action.

With these themes in mind, the Court will turn to an examination of the legal issues presented by P&G and Dinsmore's motions for summary judgment.

(4) It Is also essential to address these basic factual themes early on because counsel for Amway has gone to great lengths in its 118 page brief to muddy the waters. Amway's brief is filled with unsupported inferences, hyperbole and a failure to distinguish between the various defendants. The confusion is compounded by counsel's strategic decision not to identify the exhibits relied on except by reference to "Andrew Aff. Ex.___." There are 205 exhibits attached to the Andrew affidavit.

(5) There is some dispute between the parties regarding what documents P&G and Dinsmore gave to Schwartz and what documents Schwartz retrieved from others. Dinsmore contends that the only documents provided to Schwartz by Dinsmore are the court filings in the Utah litigation, publicly available court filings in the Setzer case, and transcripts of the Amway motivational audio tapes that Mr. Schwartz provided to Dinsmore. 5/18/01 Heuck Aff. 116. Amway contends Dinsmore also provided Mr. Schwartz with a copy of the Texas complaint and the documents from Cairns v. Amway Corp., Case No. C-1-84-0783 (S.D. Ohio) ("the Cairns case"). Schwartz dep. at 169-72. For purposes of this motion the Court, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Amway, will assume that P&G and Dinsmore provided Schwartz all of the documents at issue: the litigation documents from the Utah case, the Texas case, the Cairns case and the Setzer case, and transcripts of the Amway motivational tapes.

(6) The Court recognizes that one who repeats a defamatory statement about a public Figure with knowledge that it is false. or with reckless disregard of the truth. adopts it as his own and may be liable in equal measure to the original defamer. See Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co. , 838 F.2d 1287, 1298 (D.C. Cir. 1988).