Charles Yeager v. Connie Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076

Background

Yeager and his foundation sued the Bowlins for claims including violations of the Lanham Act and California privacy and publicity rights.
At his deposition, Yeager could not recall answers to about 185–200 questions, including core issues of the case.
On the same day he opposed summary judgment, Yeager filed a declaration with detailed memories not recollected at deposition.
The district court deemed Yeager’s declaration a sham and excluded it for summary judgment purposes, granting Defendants’ motion on all claims.
The district court held the California privacy and publicity claims time-barred under the two-year limitations period.
Yeager appeals the sham-declaration ruling and the single-publication rule analysis for internet republication.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the declaration was a sham	Yeager argues the declaration reflects truthful recollection refreshed after deposition.	Bowlin contends the declaration contradicts deposition testimony and is a sham.	Yes; the court did not abuse its discretion in striking the declaration as a sham.
Whether the single-publication rule governs internet republication here	Yeager contends website updates restarted limitations by republication.	Bowlin argues updates constituted republication of the challenged statements.	No; republication requires substantive alteration or new audience, not mere hosting or minor updates.
Whether republication on a website restarts the statute of limitations under California law	Yeager asserts each substantive update restarted the clock.	Bowlin contends no restart absent substantive new publication to a new audience.	Held consistent with single-publication rule; no restart of limitations from hosting or non-substantive updates.

Key Cases Cited

Van Asdale v. International Game Technology, 577 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for sham affidavit rule; require clear contradiction)
Kennedy v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co., 952 F.2d 262 (9th Cir. 1991) (sham affidavit rule; avoid undermining summary judgment utility)
Scamhorn v. General Truck Drivers, 282 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2002) (sham declaration concept acknowledged in dicta)
Collins v. United States, 269 F.2d 745 (9th Cir. 1959) (contempt-like concerns related to failure to recall information)
Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (U.S. 1999) (explanation that reasonable explanations may resolve contradictions)
Oja v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 440 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2006) (internet republication: substantive changes may constitute new publication)
Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2007) (adding content to a different URL may not trigger republication)
Roberts v. McAfee, Inc., 660 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2011) (website hosting alone does not republisha content)
Hebrew Academy of San Francisco v. Goldman, 173 P.3d 1004 (Cal. 2007) (recurrence of republication principle for internet content)
Christoff v. Nestle USA, Inc., 213 P.3d 132 (Cal. 2009) (single-publication rule and internet republication framework)
Firth v. State, 775 N.E.2d 463 (N.Y. 2002) (modification to a website does not constitute republication)
Kanarek v. Bugliosi, 166 Cal. Rptr. 526 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (republication principles for publications and formats)
In re Davis, 334 B.R. 874 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2005) ( Bankruptcy context cited for publication updates; see related discussion)