Louisiana Crisis Assistance Center v. Marzano-Lesnevich
827 F. Supp. 2d 668
E.D. La.2011Background
- LCAC sued Alexandria Marzano-Lesnevich in Orleans Parish state court in July 2011 for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, seeking injunctive relief related to confidential information from her LCAC clerkship.
- Marzano-Lesnevich, a Harvard law student, served as an unpaid summer law clerk at LCAC in 2003; she later published essays and works relating to LCAC clients and the death penalty.
- LCAC discovered the writings in 2010; LCAC directors questioned confidentiality and contacted publisher sites to remove published works.
- The case was removed to federal court on August 24, 2011; Marzano-Lesnevich moved to strike under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 971, the anti-SLAPP statute.
- The court applied Erie analysis to determine whether Article 971 may apply in federal court and whether it conflicts with Federal Rules; it also addressed whether LCAC has a probability of success on its claims for injunction.
- The court ultimately denied the motion to strike, ruled Article 971 applicable, and held LCAC had shown a probability of success on its contract claim, allowing fees to be awarded to LCAC related to the motion to strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Louisiana Article 971 applies in federal court. | LCAC argues Article 971 is procedural and not conflicting with federal rules. | Marzano-Lesnevich contends Article 971 conflicts with Federal Rules and exceeds the burden allowed. | Article 971 applies in federal court; not in direct collision with Rules 8/12. |
| Whether Article 971 directly collides with the Federal Rules. | LCAC contends no direct collision exists and Erie concerns favor applying Article 971. | Marzano-Lesnevich argues direct collision would occur, limiting federal procedural law. | No direct collision; Article 971 applies, consistent with Erie analysis. |
| Whether LCAC has shown a probability of success on the merits of its injunction claim. | LCAC claims ongoing confidential disclosures will cause irreparable harm and require injunctive relief. | injunction would be a First Amendment–implicating prior restraint and overbroad. | LCAC demonstrated a probability of success on the contract/breach claim sufficient to deny strike. |
| Whether the injunction would constitute an impermissible prior restraint. | LCAC argues relief is appropriate to protect confidential information. | Special motion to strike seeks to bar publication entirely; potential prior restraint. | Court denied broad prior restraint concerns given probability of success on merits. |
| Whether LCAC is entitled to attorney’s fees for the motion to strike. | Prevailing party entitled to fees under Article 971. | Fees tied to the motion; only fees related to striking should be awarded. | LCAC entitled to fees and costs associated with opposing the motion to strike. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henry v. Lake Charles American Press, LLC, 566 F.3d 164 (5th Cir.2009) (assumed anti-SLAPP applicability; burden framework recognized)
- U.S. ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir.1999) (anti-SLAPP mechanics do not directly collide with Rule 12/56)
- Godin v. Martino, 629 F.3d 981 (1st Cir.2010) (anti-SLAPP not a substitute for Federal Rules; supplemental protection)
- All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants, 645 F.3d 329 (5th Cir.2011) (Erie and conflicts; direct collision analysis guidance)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S.1981) (state fee-shifting policies can be substantive for Erie purposes)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (U.S.1965) (Erie twin aims; focus on conflicts between state and federal rules)