John Doe v. Gangland Productions, Inc.
730 F.3d 946
9th Cir.
2013

Background

  • Gangland aired a Public Enemy Number 1 episode exposing identities; Plaintiff, a former prison gang member and police informant, claimed his face was to be concealed but was disclosed on air.
  • Plaintiff allegedly signed a one-page release at filming stating his name and identity could be used, though he claims he was told it was a receipt and that his identity would be concealed.
  • Plaintiff alleges pre-production, including signing the release and discussions about concealment, affected his life, employment as an informant, safety, and caused threats.
  • Defendants moved to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing the case arose from protected speech and public-interest issues; the district court denied the motion.
  • The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reverse in part, holding anti-SLAPP applies, Plaintiff can prevail on some claims, and certain claims are barred or remanded for further proceedings.
  • Court remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion, with each party bearing its own costs on appeal.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether anti-SLAPP applies to Plaintiff’s claims Plaintiff maintains the claims target disclosure of identity and are not protected speech. Defendants contend their conduct (interview and broadcast) is protected activity in furtherance of free speech on public-interest topics. Yes; anti-SLAPP applies to the suit.
Whether the release bars Plaintiff’s claims Plaintiff asserts the release was fraudulently executed and void. Defendants contend the release bars the claims as contractual waivers. At this stage, release is not a complete bar; fraud in execution could void the agreement.
Which claims have probability of prevailing on merits Plaintiff seeks relief for public disclosure of private facts, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false promise, and declaratory relief. Defendants challenge all four as lacking probability of success. Plaintiff has a reasonable probability on four claims: public disclosure of private fact, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false promise, and declaratory relief.
Effect of single publication rule on duplicative claims Rule should not bar multiple theories of recovery from a single broadcast. Rule bars multiple suits for the same single publication. Single publication rule does not bar multiple theories of recovery; not all claims are precluded.

Key Cases Cited

  • Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (two-step anti-SLAPP framework; initial burden on defendant; public-interest inquiry)
  • Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar, 611 F.3d 590 (9th Cir. 2010) (de novo review; probability of prevailing on merits; standard akin to nonsuit)
  • Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (Cal. 2007) (interview and investigation can be protected activity; public-interest linkage)
  • Hall v. Time Warner, Inc., 153 Cal. App. 4th 1337 (Cal. App. 2007) (television broadcast and interview protected activity)
  • Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc., 110 Cal. App. 4th 156 (Cal. App. 2003) (newsgathering protected; illegal aspects do not strip protection)
  • Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 31 Cal.4th 728 (Cal. 2003) (distinguishes protected activity from illegality for anti-SLAPP)
  • Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (exception for acts conclusively illegal as a matter of law)
  • Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 193 Cal. App. 4th 133 (Cal. App. 2011) (public-interest focus on defendants’ conduct; persona in broadcast)
  • Dyer v. Childress, 147 Cal. App. 4th 1273 (Cal. App. 2007) (public-interest inquiry; distinguish public issue from plaintiff’s persona)
  • M.G. v. Time Warner, Inc., 89 Cal. App. 4th 623 (Cal. App. 2001) (broad topic of publication; public-interest test)
  • Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 198 Cal. App. 3d 1420 (Cal. App. 1988) (newsworthiness inquiry focused on the disclosed fact, not broad topic)
  • Terry v. Davis Community Church, 131 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (Cal. App. 2005) (public-interest in broad topic of church reporting)
  • Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc., 15 Cal. App. 4th 536 (Cal. App. 1993) (public affairs category; protection for news-related uses)
  • Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Prod. Credit Ass’n, 55 Cal.4th 1169 (Cal. 2013) (parol evidence and fraud in contract)
Read the full case