per W.J.J. Hoge. Also, Kimberlin was given until July 10 to answer interrogatories that he has so far failed to answer.
If I understand correctly, one of those interrogatories asked for copies of all email written or received by Kimberlin through the Breitbart Unmasked website, from a particular date (I don't remember which) through the filing of the lawsuit. Any discussion about the swattings of conservative bloggers, between Kimberlin and his associates, might provide for interesting reading. Was Kimberlin involved in those swattings? Does he know who did them?
As for prevailing on the claims of defamation and false light, it would seem to me, a non-lawyer layman, that any commentary about Kimberlin's criminal convictions could not possibly qualify as defamation, since those crimes are documented fact and well publicized. The only thing that he might prevail on (or so it seems to me) is defamation for being falsely accused of the swattings against various conservative bloggers.
Did any conservative bloggers or pundits actually accuse Kimberlin of being behind the swattings? Or did they merely voice their suspicions? One or two may have stepped over the line. If so, can Brett Kimberlin be defamed any further than his own past has done? Is Brett Kimberlin defamation proof? Some of the legal briefs I have read in the case say that he is, i.e. that it is not possible to harm Kimberlin's reputation any more than he has already harmed it himself. The briefs cited prior cases that support this, i.e. that someone with a particularly unsavory past cannot be legally defamed, and thus his claims for defamation cannot stand.
In any case, today's court decision is good news for the defendants. Now the case can focus on the only truly relevant matters, assuming Kimberlin answers all interrogatories by July 10. If he does not, I would expect the case to be dismissed for all defendants.