214 F. Supp. 3d 808
N.D. Cal.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (PPFA and multiple Planned Parenthood affiliates) allege defendants (Center for Medical Progress, BioMax, David Daleiden, Sandra Merritt, others) infiltrated reproductive-health conferences and private meetings using fake companies/IDs, signed confidentiality agreements, and secretly recorded conversations to produce edited videos attacking Planned Parenthood.
- Plaintiffs claim the videos were false/misleading, caused harassment, threats, legislative and investigative attention, and increased security and operational costs; they tie one horrific consequence to these campaigns (Colorado Springs shooting aftermath alleged impact).
- Plaintiffs assert fifteen claims including RICO, federal and state wiretap/wiretapping statutes, civil conspiracy, breach of contract (NAF/PPFA/PPGC NDAs and exhibitor agreements), trespass, UCL, fraudulent misrepresentation, invasion of privacy, and breach of confidentiality agreements.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to plead plausible facts and standing; separately they moved to strike state-law claims under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute. Defendants also argued First Amendment and causation limits for several tort/damages theories.
- The court denied the motions to dismiss and to strike, finding plaintiffs pleaded sufficient plausible facts to proceed on the main claims (noting some predicate theories—mail/wire fraud based on non‑trade‑secret confidential information—were deficient), and that factual causation/First Amendment limits can be addressed later at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RICO standing (injury to "business or property") | Plaintiffs allege disrupted services, increased security costs, lost vendors, and impaired ability to serve clients — injuries to business/property | Defendants say reputational harms and downstream effects of speech are not RICO injuries; proximate‑cause is lacking | Court: Alleged increased costs and interference with operations sufficiently plead RICO statutory standing at pleading stage; proximate cause plausibly alleged for some damages (but remote third‑party publication harms may be too attenuated) |
| RICO predicate acts (wire/mail fraud; identity‑theft §1028) | Plaintiffs plead wire/mail and §1028 predicates (fraudulent registrations/emails; production/transfer/use of fake IDs) | Defendants: wire/mail fraud requires intent to obtain money/property and confidential info must be trade secret; §1028 theories defective in parts | Court: Mail/wire fraud predicates fail because plaintiffs did not adequately allege acquisition of money/property or trade‑secret status; §1028 (production/transfer/use of false IDs) adequately pleaded as to production/transfer and use affecting interstate commerce (at pleading stage) but not §1028(a)(7) tied to other federal/state felonies |
| Federal Wiretap Act and state wiretapping claims | Plaintiffs allege intentional interception of communications without consent to commit torts/crimes and subsequent tortious use (publication) | Defendants argue recordings were by participants and only unlawful if intercepted for independent tort/crime; causation/standing challenges | Court: §2511 claim survives because alleged recording followed by tortious publication and RICO/tort purposes suffice at pleading stage; Florida/Maryland/California statutory claims also adequately pleaded given fact‑intensive privacy expectations (to be resolved later) |
| Breach of contract / NDAs / Trespass | Plaintiffs allege defendants signed exhibitor and NDA agreements and breached confidentiality; trespass claims where consent was obtained by fraud or exceeded | Defendants argue vagueness, no signatory (Merritt), consent/authorized access, and First Amendment bars damages tied to publication | Court: Contract claims sufficiently definite and proximate damages plausibly alleged; NDA breaches and third‑party beneficiary allegations (NAF) plausible; trespass claims survive (nominal damages available); First Amendment may later limit recovery for publication‑based damages but not grounds to dismiss now |
| Anti‑SLAPP motions and associational/employee privacy | Defendants claim videos/publication are protected speech in public interest; Merritt contends journalistic purpose and Section 633.5 defense | Plaintiffs argue illegal means (fraud/illegal recordings) and non‑waiver of claims; plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and show likelihood to prevail on state claims | Court: Assuming defendants made prima facie showing of protected activity, plaintiffs demonstrated a probability of prevailing; anti‑SLAPP motions denied. Merritt’s §633.5 affirmative‑defense claim raises factual issues and cannot be resolved on strike. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for federal pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard — reasonable inference required)
- National Org. for Women v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (RICO standing for disruption of clinic services)
- Ass’n of Wash. Pub. Hosp. Dists. v. Philip Morris, 241 F.3d 696 (9th Cir.) (proximate‑cause limits in RICO standing context)
- Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (RICO proximate causation — direct relation between fraud and harm)
- Holmes v. Sec. Inv’r Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (RICO proximate‑cause analysis)
- Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451 (distinguishing conduct that directly causes harm from distinct predicate acts)
- Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 559 U.S. 1 (proximate cause and directness in RICO claims)
- Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19 (confidential business information can be "property" for mail/wire fraud contexts)
- In re Google Inc., 806 F.3d 125 (3d Cir.) (Wiretap Act pleading: need inference of interception for tortious/criminal purpose)