Case 0:17-cv-60426-UU Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2018 Page 5 of 22 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001)). In reviewing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the factual allegations of the non-moving party are assumed to be true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in that party’s favor. Hawthorne v. MAC Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 1998). ANALYSIS Plaintiffs move for partial judgment on the pleadings with respect to two of Defendants’ affirmative defenses: the fair report privilege, and the neutral report privilege. See D.E. 38 p. 9. The threshold question before the Court is whether these affirmative defenses are governed by New York or Florida law. Each side argues that it prevails regardless of which law applies, but Defendants argue that the Court should apply New York law. A. Choice of Law The Court is required to conduct a choice-of-law analysis where there is a true conflict between the laws of the states with an interest in the case. A true conflict exists when “two or more states have a legitimate interest in a particular set of facts in litigation and the laws of those states differ or would produce a different result.” Pycsa Panama, S.A. v. Tensar Earth Techs., Inc., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1198, 1219 (S.D. Fla. 2008), aff’d, 329 F. App’x 257 (11th Cir. 2009). A false conflict, by contrast, exists “‘when the potentially applicable laws do not differ.’” Fioretti v. Massachusetts Gen. Life Ins. Co., 53 F.3d 1228, 1234 n. 20 (11th Cir. 1995) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 1 cmt. b (1971)). The Court has reviewed the laws of Florida and New York and finds that they conflict. As to the fair report privilege, Florida follows the common law, and New York has codified it. Compare Woodard v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 616 So. 2d 501, 502 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993), with N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 74. The common law generally protects only reports of 5