Krebs mentions the person was arrested. Ubiquiti claims first that he doesn't point out the person he sourced it from what arrested, and that he tries to mislead people by not saying repeatedly that the person is basically felon, and that being arrested makes him an invalid source of evidence, etc. They also claim he describes him as a current employee.
This is all nonsense AFAICT
1. Krebs mentions the person was arrested.
2. Krebs says "In March, a ubiqitui employee said X". That was accurate at the time (AFAIK, and ubiquiti cites no real evidence I see that Krebs should have known it was not true).
3. Krebs carefully points out the arrested person claims x and y (which is accurate).
4. The filing says Sharp made false claims, and spends a paragraph explaining them.
5. The filing says Krebs made them too, but ironically, for all of its bluster, doesn't cite where and when (that I can see), and which exact claims, they are claiming Krebs said that were false.
6. The filing cites no evidence that Krebs knew or should have known, in March, that the claims were false. They get into some weird arguments about their 10-q filing but it's hard to understand the point they are trying to make. It apperas they are trying to claim that krebs should have known they notified the public but i think that's kind of a silly argument - krebs is clearly talking about their users, and most users do not read 10-q's. Saying you notified the public because you put it in a 10-q is like saying you notified the public because you put it in a classified ad section. It's dumb wordplay.
7. The December blog post they say he "doubled down on" seems again, carefully written to say what Sharp claims, not what Krebs claims.
I could go on.
The whole thing is, IMHO, not written very well. It's very emotionally written for a pleading, and you will be hard pressed to find a judge who will get themselves worked up over that kind of writing. Instead they mostly roll their eyes and wish that someone gave them a clear and convincing pleading instead.
Put another way - if there is a case here, it isn't visible on this pleading. This feels like "throw a bunch of emotional stuff at a wall and hope it sticks", where you really want "here is an open and shut case of why this person defamed us"