3m Company v. Boulter
842 F. Supp. 2d 85
D.D.C.2012Background
- 3M sues the Porton and Davis defendants for multiple claims including commercial defamation, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy arising from a BacLite dispute in the UK.
- Underlying issue: BacLite, a MRSA test, was marketed by Acolyte; 3M acquired Acolyte shares and later sought to stop BacLite marketing under a sales agreement.
- Defendants allegedly pressured 3M via extortionate and defamatory actions, including a media campaign and meetings with UK officials, to secure settlement funds.
- UK High Court later found 3M breached the SPA and awarded damages around $1.3 million; 3M alleges reputational and business harms in the UK as a result of defendants’ conduct.
- 3M sought preliminary relief in federal court; motions included DC Anti-SLAPP special motions, discovery, and Rule 12 motions (2 and 6).
- Court holds DC Anti-SLAPP special motions do not apply in a federal diversity action; rule-based dismissal standards govern instead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DC Anti-SLAPP Act applies in a federal diversity action | 3M argues Act is applicable even in a federal court sitting in diversity. | Defendants contend Act provides a broader, state-law-like pretrial dismissal not compatible with federal rules. | No; Act cannot apply in federal court sitting in diversity. |
| Whether the Act conflicts with Federal Rules 12 and 56 | 3M contends discovery and merits standards under Act are distinct from Rule 12/56. | Defendants contend Act addresses petitioning-like conduct and should coexist with federal rules. | Yes, Act conflicts with Rules 12/56 and cannot apply here. |
| Whether the Rules Enabling Act allows the federal rules to be preempted by state Anti-SLAPP procedures | 3M argues no substantive preemption; federal rules govern procedures. | Defendants assert the Act creates substantive rights that can coexist with the Rules Enabling Act. | Rules Enabling Act requires applying federal rules; Act cannot preempt them in this context. |
| Disposition of Rule 12 motions (jurisdiction and merits challenges) in light of the above | 3M relies on Rule 12 to evaluate claims with discovery and merits-focused analysis. | Defendants argue for dismissal under the Act or under Rule 12 based on merits and jurisdictional issues. | Porton 12(b)(2) granted; Davis 12(b)(6) granted in part and denied in part. |
| Whether the complaint states actionable claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for specific counts | 3M contends multiple counts survive as defamation and related claims. | Davis and Porton argue several counts fail to plead required elements or ties to UK conduct. | Counts I (intimidation) and II/III (tortious interference) and V (injurious falsehood) defended; Counts IV, V, VI, VII, VIII evaluated; rulings issued accordingly (partial grant/denial noted). |
Key Cases Cited
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (framework for resolving conflicts between federal rules and state law)
- Burlington Northern R.R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U.S. 1 (1987) (conflict preemption when state rule mandates discretionary or rigid outcomes)
- Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740 (1980) (discusses direct collision test in Erie framework and Rule interpretation)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (intersection of federal and state law in Erie analysis)
- Callaway v. Hamilton Nat. Bank of Wash., 195 F.2d 556 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (Rule 12(d) treatment of extraneous matter; speaking motions to be treated as summary judgment)
- Farrall v. D.C. Amateur Athletic Union, 153 F.2d 647 (D.C. Cir. 1946) (early treatment of extraneous material on Rule 12 motions)
- Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2010) (state anti-SLAPP statutes in federal court; substantive vs procedural rights)
- U.S. v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999) (discusses conflict with discovery rules under California anti-SLAPP statute)
- National War Labor Board v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 144 F.2d 528 (D.C. Cir. 1944) (pre-1946 rule interpretation guiding Rule 12(d) treatment)
- Gallup v. Caldwell, 120 F.2d 90 (3d Cir. 1941) (early precedent on affidavits in Rule 12 motions)
- Shady Grove Part II-A concurrence (Stevens), 130 S. Ct. 1431 (2010) (explains scope of federal rule applying to dispute)