Question: Jonathan Harr's best-selling book, A Civil Action, is a dramatized account of real-life toxic tort litigation involving a tannery. The book discusses evidence that the protagonist, attorney Jan Schlictmann, regarded as implicating tannery owner John Riley in the deaths of several children. Riley brought a defamation action against Harr and the book's publisher because, in Riley's view, the book had depicted him as a liar, a perjurer, a "killer," and a bully. One passage cited by Riley described Schlictmann's reaction upon discovering a certain incriminating document: This document was thirty years old and it dealt only with tannery waste, which might or might not havecontained TCE [a potentially harmful chemical]. But even so, Schlichtmann thought it had great value. Riley had sworn at his deposition that he had never dumped anything on the fifteen acres. Riley had lied then, and Schlichtmann-who didn't need much convincing- believed that Riley was also lying about using TCE. Another passage described Schlichtmann's efforts to build a case against the tannery: It seemed that everyone but Riley recognized the fifteen acres as a toxic waste dump. Riley must have known about the condition of the property. Perhaps, thought Schlichtmann, the tanner really had been running an unauthorized waste dump. Perhaps he had charged his neighbor, Whitney Barrel, a fee for the use of the land. Did Riley have a meritorious defamation claim against Harr and the publishing company on the basis of the above statements?