As I read it, this is a bunch of legal sounding smoke...because I just don't see a legitimate basis...at least one that makes sense.
1) The CDs are not sold (wink) so there can be no monetary harm.
2) The CD itself is a replication of previously printed public documents...which were not sold (wink) but distributed.
3) The reference about the intent to embarrass is purely speculative, especiallly since these are direct quotes from there own literature, with no commentary.
4) The only way to prove that intent is to show that the quotes are taken out of context or are complete mis-quotes. Do you think they really want that? In that case the worst thing they could do is go to trial.
5) They do not want to make this a discussion of doctrine, but in order to prove the claims of harm they would ultimately and inadvertantly be exposing those very doctrines. Not whether the doctrine is true, false good or bad,....but whether they did in fact print what is now only being quoted....from documents that they themselves printed and distributed freely.
Axelspeed