392 F. Supp. 3d 410
S.D. Ill.2019Background
- DNC sued the Trump Campaign, several campaign affiliates, WikiLeaks/Assange, Russian entities and others alleging the GRU hacked DNC computers in 2015–2016 and distributed stolen materials (notably via Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks) during the 2016 election.
- DNC alleged causes of action under federal statutes (CFAA, RICO, Wiretap Act, DTSA), D.C. and Virginia trade‑secret/computer statutes, and common law conversion/trespass; it filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).
- Russia moved for a statement of immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA); other defendants moved to dismiss principally on First Amendment grounds and for failure to plead RICO predicates/causation.
- Court held FSIA barred suit against the Russian Federation (no applicable exception) and held the First Amendment barred liability for publication/dissemination by non‑Russian defendants who were not alleged to have participated in the theft.
- The Court dismissed all claims with prejudice against all defendants (Russia immune; other defendants protected by the First Amendment or insufficiently pleaded), and denied the Campaign’s Rule 11 sanctions motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA exceptions (noncommercial tort or commercial activity) permit suit against Russia | DNC: Russia’s hacking/torts caused property damage in U.S.; FSIA exceptions apply | Russia: hacking planned/executed abroad; acts are sovereign/military not commercial; FSIA bars suit | Held: FSIA bars suit. Noncommercial tort fails because the “entire tort” occurred abroad; commercial‑activity exception inapplicable (state military cyberattacks are not private commercial acts). |
| Whether First Amendment permits liability for publishing/stimulating dissemination of stolen materials | DNC: defendants (WikiLeaks, Campaign, individuals) coordinated, solicited, timed and thus aided theft/publication; trade‑secret labels distinguish case | Defs: Bartnicki/New York Times, etc., protect publication of truthful, lawfully‑received information when publisher did not participate in theft | Held: First Amendment bars claims against non‑Russian defendants for publication/use of stolen documents because they are not alleged to have participated in the theft and materials concern public issues. |
| Whether RICO claims adequately pleaded enterprise, operation/management, pattern, continuity, and predicates | DNC: alleged association‑in‑fact and Campaign enterprise, multiple predicate acts (trade‑secret theft, obstruction, witness tampering) | Defs: no coherent enterprise separate from predicates; many predicates not pleaded as to particular defendants; continuity and pattern lacking; many predicates post‑event concealment | Held: RICO & RICO‑conspiracy dismissed — AIF insufficiently alleged, operation/management not shown for most defendants, predicates and continuity inadequate. |
| Whether DTSA/DCUTSA (trade secret) and related state claims survive | DNC: leaked donor lists/fundraising strategies are trade secrets; dissemination and use actionable | Defs: allegations too conclusory on trade‑secret nature; once publicized, information ceases to be trade secret; First Amendment bars enforcement | Held: Trade‑secret claims dismissed for failure to plead specific secret contours/value and because publication/public knowledge defeats misappropriation; First Amendment also dispositive. |
| Whether Wiretap Act claims are stated | DNC: publication/use/disclosure of intercepted communications by WikiLeaks and others | Defs: no contemporaneous interception alleged; no knowledge of contemporaneous interception; documents appear to be archival/stolen not intercepted | Held: Wiretap Act claims dismissed — interception defined narrowly (contemporaneous acquisition) and complaint lacks allegations that defendants knew of such interceptions. |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions against DNC are warranted | Campaign: Mueller Report undermines DNC claims making suit frivolous | DNC: civil standard lower than criminal; discovery could reveal proof | Held: Sanctions denied — SAC not so objectively unreasonable to merit Rule 11 relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (strong presumption against prior restraints and protection for publishing classified/stolen government documents on public matters)
- Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979) (state may not punish publication of lawfully obtained truthful information absent highest‑order state interest)
- Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989) (First Amendment bars civil liability for publishing matter of paramount public import even if publication violates state statute)
- Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) (civil liability for publishing unlawfully intercepted communications is barred when publisher did not participate in interception and matter is of public concern)
- Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, 504 U.S. 607 (1992) (FSIA provides the sole basis for suit against a foreign state in U.S. courts)
- Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (1989) (FSIA noncommercial tort exception read narrowly; tort occurring abroad generally outside exception)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (association‑in‑fact enterprise elements under RICO require structure, purpose, and longevity)
- Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (1993) (RICO §1962(c) requires operation or management of the enterprise; participation beyond routine tasks required)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (court need not accept legal conclusions; factual plausibility required)
- H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) (RICO pattern/continuity requirements)