Roberts v. McAfee, Inc.
660 F.3d 1156
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Roberts, former McAfee General Counsel, alleges malicious prosecution, defamation, and false light from McAfee's backdating investigations; promotion grant dated to February 14, 2000 but granted July 5, 2000 with strike price lowered to $19.75.
- McAfee discovered backdating during CFRA report (May 2006) and opened internal review; SEC/DOJ investigations followed.
- Roberts disclosed the change to the Promotion Grant in conversations with McAfee leadership, but disputes the extent of his admissions; Davis later convicted of fraud.
- Roberts was fired in 2000 following the investigation; criminal and civil actions ensued (indictment for Promotion Grant, SEC complaint, later dismissed).
- District court denied McAfee’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike malicious prosecution claims but granted it as to defamation and false light; Ninth Circuit reviews under California anti-SLAPP framework.
- Court ultimately holds: probable cause supported by various facts; defamation/false light claims time-barred under single-publication rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McAfee had probable cause to prosecute Roberts for backdating | Roberts: lack of probable cause given contested facts and misrepresentations | McAfee: there was objectively reasonable suspicion based on multiple facts including Prom. Grant, Samenuk/Matin grants | Probable cause existed; anti-SLAPP success denied on malicious prosecution. |
| Whether Roberts' defamation and false light claims are time-barred under the single-publication rule | Roberts: republication occurred due to failure to retract after falsity noted | McAfee: single-publication rule applies; no republication here | Claims time-barred; single-publication rule upheld. |
| Whether Roberts should have been allowed discovery on republication theory under Rule 56(f/56(d)) | Roberts sought discovery on McAfee's awareness of falsity and retention of the press release | Discovery unnecessary to statute-of-limitations analysis | District court acted within discretion; discovery not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 254 Cal. Rptr. 336, 765 P.2d 498 (Cal. 1989) (Cal. 1989) (probable cause includes facts known to defendant; motive irrelevant if reasonable suspicion exists)
- United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2011) (backdating with authorization concerns; reasonable suspicion suffices for probable cause)
- Reyes, 577 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2009) (backdating and accounting implications; ethics of disclosure)
- Christoff v. Nestle USA, Inc., 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 798, 213 P.3d 132 (Cal. 2009) (Cal. 2009) (single-publication rule extends to internet publications; defense repose considerations)
- Traditional Cat. Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal. App. 4th 392, 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 353 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (application of single-publication rule to web publications)