William Ford has Levitt’s reply to Lott. I think this part sums it up:
Plaintiff’s construction is so strained and based on faulty assumptions that it is inconceivable that his construction is the exclusive, reasonable interpretation of the Excerpt. The Excerpt is not about Plaintiff’s methodology, as he alleges, but his “results.” Not only is the Excerpt silent about Plaintiff’s protocols and methodology, but Defendants know of no natural and obvious meaning of the word “results” that is tantamount to “methodology”. Instead, the term “results” means just that — a finding or conclusion. Thus, the natural and obvious meaning of the Excerpt is simply that for whatever reason, other scholars arrived at a dissimilar conclusion than Lott did. The Book does not offer an explanation as to why other scholars could not come up with the same conclusion as Lott: they could have used different data, employed a different statistical analysis, or surveyed a different population group under very different socio-economic circumstances at a different point in time, or there could have been merely a computer malfunction. None of these reasonable, alternative constructions accuse Lott of academic dishonesty or otherwise impugn his professional integrity.
I don’t understand this legal stuff, but I think the next step is that the court throws out Lott’s case.