Mr. Glassman stated the following on April 21, 2008:

As we argued to the Court, a statement that accuses Dr. Cha of "hav[ing] been found guilty?of plagiarism," cannot as a matter of law be substantially true when the record is undeniable that the editor of Fertility & Sterility apologized and retracted the charge. Since there is no truth whatsoever in the false charge of plagiarism as the F&S editor has now acknowledged, we are seriously considering an appeal.

Both Dr. Flamm?s statement that he relied on the L.A. Times article and his sworn declaration filed with the Court that: "My statement did not communicate ? and was not intended to communicate ? that plaintiff had already been found guilty of plagiarism" demonstrate that he was aware of facts sufficient to doubt the truth of F&S editor Dr. DeCherney?s plagiarism allegation, and he could not reasonably believe that the editor was the ultimate authority.

We firmly believe that the Court?s findings that Dr. Flamm?s article was ?substantially true? and that the F&S editor was the ?ultimate authority? on the plagiarism allegation, are directly contradicted by the facts presented in the L.A. Times article upon which Dr. Flamm relied.

? Dr. DeCherney told The Times he would take the matter to the Fertility & Sterility editorial board, clearly indicating that the board, not he, was the ultimate authority.

? The Times quoted the editor of the Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology saying he was certain it was ?a case of multiple publication,? which is not plagiarism, and casts doubt on the truth of the plagiarism allegation.

? Further casting doubt on the truth of the allegation, The Times reported the comments of an author listed on both published articles explaining why Dr. Kim?s name was left off of the Fertility & Sterility article and why Dr. Cha?s name was left off of the Korean journal article.

? Even Dr. DeCherney apparently had doubts, because, as The Times article stated, he first suggested that Fertility & Sterility publish an erratum saying Dr. Kim ?should have been included among the authors of the F&S article,? and then he took no further action for nearly one year.

As we all now know, these causes for doubt in the L.A. Times article were borne out by the F&S editor?s subsequent retraction and apology in which he stated publicly: ?Considering the facts of the matter, I consider my references to ?plagiarism? and ?perjury? to be inaccurate and regrettable.? #