With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) (explaining that a public figure plaintiff must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant published false material, knowing of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth). 5 . The Times urges this Court to adopt the holdings of White v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F.2d 512 (D.C.Cir.1990), and later decisions, that require a plaintiff to prove that the defendant endorsed the defamatory implication. The cases cited by The Times are each inapplicable. Because the Court finds that the law of Pennsylvania governs this case, and the Court has determined that Franklin is a private figure, the negligence standard as adopted by the Pennsylvania Courts will control. See Rutt, 335 Pa.Super. at 185-86, 484 A.2d 72 (<HOLDING>); Wilson, 970 F.Supp. at 415-417 (holding

A: holding that some of the testimony is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and there fore is not hearsay
B: holding plaintiffs must plead alleged defamatory statements with precision
C: holding statement not defamatory as matter of law that does not charge plaintiff with commission of a crime violation of any law or contract or with any unethical acts and business dealings
D: holding that a private figure defamation plaintiff seeking compensation for harm inflicted as a result of the publication of defamatory matter must prove that the defamatory matter was published with want of reasonable care and diligence to ascertain the truth or in the vernacular with negligence
D.