The AP's lawyers also argued that Deripaska is a public figure, meaning that he must prove actual malice in any defamation lawsuit.
"Dismissal is warranted because the Complaint fails to plausibly allege any facts entitling plaintiff to relief as a matter of law," the AP's lawyers said in their filing, arguing that Deripaska was challenging the story based on "strained implications." that were merely based on opinion.
"A public figure like Deripaska must allege facts — and not simply conclusions — that if proven would plausibly establish publication by AP with 'actual malice' in order to state a claim. He has not done so," the lawyers said on Monday.
On May 15, Deripaska began legal proceedings against the Associated Press because of its refusal to clarify and remove a story about his alleged connections with Paulk Manafort, the former campaign manager of President Donald Trump.
AP's lawyers stressed the media outlet stood by the article and pointed out that Deripaska questioned the publication based on "strained implications" and not on the information mentioned the report.
Some US politicians have alleged that Russia has interfered in the 2016 US election.
However, Russian officials have repeatedly denied meddling in the US election and have called the allegations to the contrary absurd.
