As we’ve reported previously, Sarah Palin filed a defamation lawsuit against the New York Times following a now “corrected” editorial in which the editorial board tied Palin to the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The paper published similar claims previously, but the Times’ is reportedly facing this laughable challenge:

Wait, come again…

Apparently that’s something that a reasonable person wouldn’t expect to happen:

Here’s what that section of the judge’s ruling says:

For example, the Complaint alleges that the allegedly false statement of fact that are the subject of the Complaint were contradicted by information already set forth in prior news stories published by the Times. However, these prior stories arguably would only evidence actual malice if the person(s) who wrote the editorial were aware of them.

So the NYT now has prove to the court that their editors don’t always read the NYT? Classic.

Also, the Times’ argument for dismissal of the case doesn’t appear to be going well:

Editor’s note: This post has been updated to more accurately reflect the details of this story.