Doe v. Gangland Productions, Inc.
802 F. Supp. 2d 1116
C.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiff, a former prison gang member, gave a taped interview for Gangland; Defendants aired excerpts showing his face and gang nickname.
- Plaintiff alleged Defendants promised to conceal his identity prior to the interview; Release granted broad rights to broadcast his name and identity.
- Plaintiff contends interview interviewer misled him—Release was merely a receipt for the $300 paid and identity would be concealed.
- Plaintiff claims disclosure of identity led to death threats and loss of income; he asserts he would not have participated if identity were disclosed.
- Defendants moved to strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint under California’s Anti-SLAPP Statute § 425.16; court must assess whether disclosure of identity is protected activity.
- Court reviews evidentiary objections, explains the two-step Anti-SLAPP analysis, and ultimately denies the motion
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disclosure of identity was in furtherance of free speech | Plaintiff argues the release/identity disclosure was not protected | Defendants contend disclosure is in furtherance of free speech under § 425.16(e)(4) | Defendants failed to show the disclosure was in furtherance of protected speech |
| Whether disclosure of identity was in connection with a public issue or public interest | Disclosing identity is private, not informing a public issue | Program topics (gang violence) render identity disclosure connected to public interest | Not in connection with a public issue or public interest |
| Whether the Anti-SLAPP analysis can proceed given the record | Anti-SLAPP should dismiss early only if prongs show lack of protection | Anti-SLAPP applies to show protected activity | Court determined the Defendants did not meet the first prong; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bosley Med. Inst., Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005) (initial burden shifting and anti-SLAPP framework)
- New.Net, Inc. v. Lavasoft, 356 F.Supp.2d 1090 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (plaintiff must show a prima facie case of merit after defense's showing)
- Rivero v. AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 105 Cal.App.4th 913 (Cal. App. 2003) (public issue/public interest framework for § 425.16(e)(4))
- Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal.App.4th 1122 (Cal. App. 2003) (public interest test for anti-SLAPP; requires substantial public concern and close relation)
- Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 599 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2010) (test for public issue/public interest in anti-SLAPP context)