365 F. Supp. 3d 652
E.D. Va.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (former DNC staffers/donors) allege Russian operatives hacked DNC servers and WikiLeaks published thousands of emails containing private personal data (≈22,000 emails with personal info), causing personal and financial harm.
- Plaintiffs allege the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian agents/WikiLeaks to publish the stolen emails to damage the Clinton campaign and benefit the Campaign.
- Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint asserting: (I) conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); (II–IV) state-law claims for public disclosure of private facts (Tennessee, Maryland, New Jersey claims for different plaintiffs); (V) Maryland IIED; (VI) common-law civil conspiracy (voluntarily dismissed at argument).
- The Campaign moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing First Amendment protection for publishing matter of public concern and, as to § 1985(3), that plaintiffs failed to allege state action or a cognizable substantive right; it also disputed choice-of-law and merits of state tort claims.
- The court treated plaintiffs’ well‑pleaded allegations as true but found the complaint insufficient as a matter of law: § 1985(3) claim dismissed with prejudice for lack of state action; state-law claims dismissed without prejudice (forum law applied where necessary).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Campaign's release/publication is protected by the First Amendment | Bartnicki-style protection applies because emails relate to public concern; Campaign did not acquire them | Publications concern public affairs of DNC/campaigns so protected; Campaign emphasizes newsworthiness | Court: disputed; on pleaded facts (alleged coordination/conspiracy) First Amendment protection not warranted at dismissal stage |
| Whether § 1985(3) (support/advocacy clause) creates an independent substantive right not requiring state action | § 1985(3) protects integrity of federal elections and does not require alleging violation of a separate substantive right | § 1985(3) is remedial; plaintiffs must plead violation of a preexisting constitutional right and state action where that right requires it | Court: § 1985(3) is remedial; plaintiffs’ claim construed as First Amendment right and fails for lack of state action — Count I dismissed with prejudice |
| Choice of law and place of wrong for public disclosure torts from internet publication | Place of wrong is plaintiffs’ home states where harm/effects were felt; apply Maryland/NJ/TN law per plaintiffs | Place of wrong is where publication originated (e.g., where publisher operated); forum law applies if location uncertain | Court: tort complete at publication; place of wrong is where publication to Internet occurred but complaint fails to identify locus of WikiLeaks publication, so court applies Virginia forum law; Virginia does not recognize common-law public-disclosure claim — Counts II–IV dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether Comer’s IIED claim satisfies elements (Maryland law) | Dissemination of Comer’s private emails caused severe distress and meets IIED standards | Conduct not "extreme and outrageous" as required under Maryland law | Court: alleged dissemination (workplace gossip, illness) not extreme/outrageous; IIED dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (post-interception publication of matters of public concern may be protected speech)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (definition of speech on matters of public concern)
- Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (press may publish truthful information of public concern even if obtained unlawfully by third party)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts need not accept legal conclusions or unwarranted inferences)
- United Bhd. of Carpenters v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 (§ 1985(3) vindicates rights found elsewhere; state action required for First Amendment–based claims)
- Great American Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366 (§ 1985(3) provides remedial, not substantive, rights)
- Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719 (construction of § 1985(3) support/advocacy clauses)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (federal court applies forum state's choice-of-law rules)