Oakley, Inc. v. McWilliams, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101271

Defendant McWilliams, formerly a consultant for Oakley, began sending harassing emails to Oakley, Jannard, and related industry contacts after Oakley acquired the company in 2006.
The emails allegedly accused Plaintiffs of criminal activity, charity fraud, price fixing, and other misdeeds, and included pornographic images and impersonations.
Plaintiffs previously obtained summary judgment recognizing defamatory statements; Plaintiffs are not public figures and claims for fraud, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress remain pending.
The court found there was no evidence supporting McWilliams’ statements and noted the statements appeared rooted in mental illness.
Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction barring repeat defamatory statements and the court analyzed whether speech-based relief could be constitutionally issued.
A separate order addressed non-speech conduct in relation to the dispute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a permanent injunction against McWilliams’ speech is permissible.	Plaintiffs argue speech should be enjoined as narrowly tailored, citing Balboa Island.	McWilliams contends such injunction constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint	Denied; injunction against speech is impermissible.

Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co., 224 F. Supp. 978 (D. Or. 1963) (definitive defamation injunctions are rare and require narrow tailoring?)
San Antonio Cmty. Hosp. v. S. Cal. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 125 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 1997) (narrow injunctions against speech are unusual; caution urged.)
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973) (context limits on prior restraints in certain contexts.)
Tory v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 734 (2005) (addresses limits of prior restraints and defamation relief.)
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (permanent injunctions require irreparable harm, etc.)