Harkonen v. Fleming
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103227
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Dr. Scott Harkonen, former InterMune CEO, sues Dr. Fleming over statements in a journal article and lectures about Actimmune IPF trial data.
- Actimmune trial data cutoff was June 26, 2002; August 28, 2002 press release claimed a survival benefit based on a post-hoc analysis.
- DMC (Data Monitoring Committee) and InterMune reviewed interim survival data; later communications questioned interpretation of survival results.
- Fleming published a peer-reviewed article and delivered university lectures alleging data misrepresentation; InterMune employees contributed input.
- Plaintiff alleges defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from these statements and related publications and lectures.
- Court grants defendant’s motion to strike under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP) recognizing protected, privileged scholarly speech meeting the common-interest privilege
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statements are protected by common-interest privilege | Harkonen argues statements were unprivileged, defamatory | Fleming's statements were privileged scholarly communications | Privileged under Cal. Civ.Code § 47(c)(1) |
| Whether plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure | Harkonen contends public controversy and voluntary participation qualify him | Fleming argues no public figure status | Ampex test satisfied; plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure |
| Whether actual malice is shown to defeat privilege/public-figure status | Fleming knew or reckless about falsity; malicious intent shown | Evidence shows reliance on InterMune input and editorial oversight; not reckless | No showing of actual malice by preponderance/clear and convincing standard |
| Whether other claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light) survive anti-SLAPP | Statements and lectures caused distress/false light publicity | Speech privileged and related claims fail | Dismissed as barred by privilege and lack of malice |
| Whether the defamation claim survives after privilege and malice analysis | Statements about falsified data defamatory | Protected scholarly speech; no malice shown | Struck under anti-SLAPP; no prevailing likelihood |
Key Cases Cited
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (Cal. 2007) (common-interest privilege and malice standards for qualified privilege)
- Khawar v. Globe Int'l, Inc., 19 Cal.4th 254 (Cal. 1998) (public figure analysis in defamation actions)
- Ampex Corp. v. Cargle, 128 Cal.App.4th 1569 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (three-part test for limited-purpose public figures; involvement in controversy)
- Smith v. Maldonado, 72 Cal.App.4th 637 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (elements of defamation claim)
- Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc., 151 Cal.App.4th 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (proof standards for actual malice in defamation)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (Supreme Court 1964) (actual malice standard for publication of defamation)
- Blatty v. New York Times, 42 Cal.3d 1033 (Cal. 1986) (requirement that statement be of and concerning plaintiff)
- Sanborn v. Chronicle Publ. Co., 18 Cal.3d 406 (Cal. 1976) (malice standard for defeating privilege)
- Christian Research Institute v. Alnor, 148 Cal.App.4th 71 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (malice focus on truthfulness rather than motive)
- Beckley Newspapers Corp. v. Hanks, 389 U.S. 81 (Supreme Court 1967) (negligence in investigation not sufficient for actual malice)
- Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999) (anti-SLAPP applicability in federal court)