AMOR v. CONOVER

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA __________________________________________

JAMES MICHAEL AMOR, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : v. : Civil No. 5:21-cv-05574-JMG : COURTNEY CONOVER, : Defendant. : __________________________________________

ORDER AND NOW, on this 12th day of October, 2022, upon consideration of Defendant Courtney Conover’s request that this Court determine Plaintiffs to be limited purpose public figures asserted in Plaintiffs’ Pretrial Memorandum (ECF No. 72) and at the Final Pretrial Conference, and in further consideration of Defendant’s additional briefing submitted via e-mail1, Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum of law in Opposition to Considering Plaintiffs as Limited Purpose Public Figures (ECF No. 107) and Plaintiff’s additional letter to the Court in opposition to considering Plaintiffs as limited purpose public figures (ECF No. 110); IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, this Court considers Plaintiffs to be limited purpose public figures. BY THE COURT:

/s/ John M. Gallagher JOHN M. GALLAGHER United States District Court Judge

1 The Court considers Defendant’s briefing via e-mail submission to the Court, which copied Plaintiffs’ counsel, in consideration of the “liberal treatment traditionally afforded pro se litigants.” Hill v. Barnacle, 751 Fed. Appx. 245, 250 (3d. Cir. 2018).