• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANT’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
Mark Goldowitz, # 96418CALIFORNIA ANTI SLAPP-PROJECT2903 Sacramento StreetBerkeley, CA 94702Phone: (510) 486-9123 x 301Fax: (510) 486-9708Cindy A. Cohn, # 145997ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION454 Shotwell StreetSan Francisco, CA 94110Phone: (415) 436-9333 x 108Fax: (415) 436-9993Special Counsel for DefendantJOHN DOE a/k/a knowfcfs
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
FIRST CASH FINANCIAL SERVICES,INC.
,Plaintiff,v.JOHN DOE
 
A/K/A KNOWFCFS, etal., Defendant
. ))))))))))))
CASE NO.:1-03-CV002135DEFENDANT JOHN DOE’S REPLYMEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OFSPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE,PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16BY FAX
Date:November 20, 2003Time:9 a.m.Dept.:2Judge:Hon. William J. Elfving
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANT’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...................................................................1I.THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA IS COVERED BY C.C.P. SECTION 425.16, BECAUSE ITARISES ENTIRELY FROM DEFENDANT’S ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE FIRSTAMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT ON A PUBLIC ISSUE........................1A.The California Anti-SLAPP Law Is to Be Construed Broadly, and It Applies to DiscoverySought under the Authority of a California Court when It Arises from any Act inFurtherance of the Rights of Speech or Petition.................................2B.The Doctrine of Comity Has No Impact Here, Because Section 425.16 Is a ProceduralStatute and Because Texas and California Substantive Law Do Not Materially Conflict inthis Case...............................................................3C.Public Policy Requires Application of the Anti-SLAPP Law to Plantiff’s DepositionSubpoena...............................................................5II.PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN UNDER SECTION 425.16 BECAUSE ITHAS SUED DEFENDANT ONLY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BUT HAS PROVIDEDNO EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES OR OFDAMAGES. ..................................................................6III.PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY MUST BEDENIED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE ANDPROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IN C.C.P. SECTION 425.16(g)......................9CONCLUSION....................................................................10
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
1DEFENDANT’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANT JOHN DOE’S REPLY MEMORANDUMIN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKEINTRODUCTION
.Plaintiff, a publicly-traded company, has sued defendant, a John Doe, in Texas, alleging a singlecause of action for breach of contract based solely on defendant’s posts about matters of publicsignificance on a Yahoo! financial message board.Plaintiff has invoked the authority of this Court to compel Yahoo! via a deposition subpoena toprovide plaintiff with information regarding defendant’s identity. However, plaintiff has provided noevidence to support any of the elements of its claim – including damages. Indeed, defendant’sdeclaration establishes that defendant is not an employee of plaintiff and never signed a confidentialityor employment agreement with plaintiff and therefore plaintiff can not prove that any contract wasbreached.Thus, plaintiff’s deposition subpoena is a fishing expedition spawned by a meritless lawsuit,arising from defendant’s exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech rights. This is the kind of abuse of the California courts that the California anti-SLAPP law is designed to prevent. Defendant’sspecial motion to strike should be granted.
I.THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA IS COVERED BY C.C.P. SECTION 425.16, BECAUSEIT ARISES ENTIRELY FROM DEFENDANT’S ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THEFIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT ON A PUBLIC ISSUE
.Defendant John Doe’s original motion demonstrated that the California anti-SLAPP law wasenacted to protect the fundamental constitutional rights of petition and speech and is to be construedbroadly, and set forth the procedure and standards for determining applicability of the anti-SLAPPstatute. (SMTS 4:12-6:14.) Defendant also established that plaintiff First Cash Financial Services is apublicly-traded corporation, and that messages posted on an Internet financial message board websiteabout a publicly-traded corporation, such as those posted by defendant, are covered under the anti-SLAPP statute. (SMTS 6:15-2:18.)Plaintiff does not dispute any of this. Rather, plaintiff argues that the anti-SLAPP statute maynot be applied to a lawsuit pending in Texas, and therefore this Court may not strike the subpoena which
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...