641 F.Supp.3d 1122
D. Colo.2022Background
- Dr. William Moreau served as USOPC Vice President of Sports Medicine (2009–2019) and had access to confidential/proprietary USOPC information and systems.
- While employed he forwarded emails and printed documents to a personal/side-business account (DCOnline), retained some materials after termination, and shared material with third parties. He also deleted or destroyed other materials.
- In February 2020 Moreau sued USOPC and included allegedly confidential/proprietary material in his complaint and discovery disclosures; USOPC learned of the possession during initial disclosures and deposition.
- In September 2020 USOPC filed counterclaims against Moreau for conversion, civil theft, breach of contract, CUTSA and DTSA misappropriation based on his alleged taking and disclosure of materials.
- Moreau filed a special motion to dismiss the counterclaims under Colorado’s anti‑SLAPP statute; USOPC separately moved to dismiss Moreau’s First Amended Complaint. Discovery has closed and dispositive motions were pending.
- The district court denied both motions: it held Colorado’s anti‑SLAPP statute can apply in federal court (with certain subsections not enforceable), found Moreau met anti‑SLAPP step one, found USOPC met the minimal step two showing for its state claims (DTSA not subject to anti‑SLAPP), and denied USOPC’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Moreau’s complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Colorado anti‑SLAPP in federal court | Moreau: Colorado anti‑SLAPP applies in federal court; it protects substantive rights and parallels California law. | USOPC: statute is procedural, conflicts with FRCP, and is inapplicable. | Court: Colorado anti‑SLAPP applies in federal court; some subsections (e.g., automatic discovery stay, timing/expedited schedule) may conflict with FRCP and are not enforced. |
| Whether Moreau’s conduct is protected petitioning activity (anti‑SLAPP step one) | Moreau: use/disclosure of documents in preparation for and filing of litigation is protected petitioning/speech. | USOPC: claims arise from unlawful misappropriation and policy violations, not protected activity. | Court: Allegations about using documents in anticipation of and during litigation fall within anti‑SLAPP protection; Moreau meets step one. |
| Whether USOPC has a reasonable likelihood to prevail (anti‑SLAPP step two) on state counterclaims | Moreau: the state claims (conversion, theft, breach, CUTSA) are legally insufficient. | USOPC: pleaded facts show misappropriation, failure to return materials, and breach of confidentiality agreements. | Court: Applying Rule 12(b)(6) standard, USOPC met the minimal step‑two burden for its conversion, civil theft, breach, and CUTSA claims; DTSA is federal and not subject to anti‑SLAPP. |
| Motion to dismiss Moreau’s First Amended Complaint | Moreau: complaint plausibly alleges wrongful discharge and related torts based on reporting misconduct. | USOPC: sought dismissal of the complaint. | Court: Denied USOPC’s motion; Moreau’s amended complaint states plausible claims under Rule 12. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (U.S. 2010) (framework for when state procedural rules apply in federal court)
- CoreCivic, Inc. v. Candide Grp., LLC, 46 F.4th 1136 (9th Cir. 2022) (California anti‑SLAPP application in federal court reconciled with Shady Grove)
- Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 890 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2018) (procedural approach for anti‑SLAPP motions in federal court: Rule 12 for legal, Rule 56 for factual challenges)
- Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (analysis of conflicts between CA anti‑SLAPP provisions and Rule 56)
- U.S. ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999) (state anti‑SLAPP provisions can coexist with Federal Rules)
- Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC v. Americulture, Inc., 885 F.3d 673 (10th Cir. 2018) (New Mexico anti‑SLAPP found purely procedural and inapplicable in federal court)
- Racher v. Westlake Nursing Home Ltd. P’ship, 871 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2017) (Tenth Circuit articulation of Shady Grove conflict analysis)
- Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2010) (Maine anti‑SLAPP applicable in federal court; Erie considerations)