Jeff:

In stark contrast to EAG's PR claiming the case was order to proceed, Judge Elfving actually ruled in favor of one of the defendants

... The only defendant in which it appears EAG could even come close to claiming success to this point is with regard to the defendant richwill21.

One might as well say that "in stark contrast to IPW's PR claiming Eagle lost, Judge Elfving actually ruled against one of the defendants", and "The only defendant who could even come close to claiming success to this point is Benderanddundat".

Look, the ruling was quite evenly mixed: one anti-SLAPP motion was granted, one was denied, and two were neither granted nor denied. I agree that Eagle put quite a positive spin on things, but it doesn't seem much worse than what you've done in the opposite direction.

You also wrote:

In the case of a second defendant, richwill21, Judge Elfving denied the motion to dismiss per Anti-SLAPP. However, he did indicate the only issue was whether the post in question was a parody or not. As such, he denied discovery into the defendant's trading history and financial records.

I think you misunderstand. Section II of the ruling (pages 2-9) is on Eagle's motion for permission to conduct discovery to oppose the anti-SLAPP motions. One doesn't normally need to move for permission to conduct discovery, but when an anti-SLAPP motion is filed, discovery is normally stayed until the motion is decided. Eagle then moved for permission to conduct some discovery before the anti-SLAPP motion was decided. Judge Elfving explains all this on page 2. He then denied the motion for discovery with respect to Richard Williams (Doe 4 / Richwill21), but he also then decided Williams's anti-SLAPP motion, denying it. Thus, the time period of the anti-SLAPP discovery stay that was at issue in Eagle's motion is now over, and there is nothing in the order to prevent discovery from proceeding now, on any topic, with respect to Williams. However, Williams has stated that he is going to appeal Judge Elfving's order (see docket item 46), which is a separate basis to stay discovery.

Jeff:

any reasonable person would surely recognize [the Williams post] as parody, but Judge Elfving apparently felt that was a question he could not rule on.

It's a little unclear there what you mean by "that" in "that was a question he could not rule on". The question of whether or not any reasonable person would "surely" recognize it as parody is a question that Elfving did rule on. His ruling was No, such recognition is not a sure thing:

Although DOE 4 may have intended the publication to be a parody, it cannot be said that the average reader, as a matter of law, would have recognized it as a parody.

(p. 12). I happen to disagree, and I'm guessing that the appeals court will, too, but the current situation is that the only judge who has ruled on the matter disagrees with us.

As for Azevedo, I think she did a reasonable job of reporting Eagle's side of the story. The problem is that she quotes Eagle's attorney, but makes no mention of even attempting to contact either of the defendants' attorneys.