You are on page 1of 4

the

research
the
an research, use
that
animal
To
oppose BY WWW.COV.COM COVINGTON
TEL
San SAN ONE
FAX

other
indispensable
415.881.8000
research
The
foreseeable
FRANCISCO.
of
FRONT
HAND
recognizes
Francisco,
California
live
NABR's NABR
research. NABR
We
the
Chief
415.581.0081
facilities~
STREET
and
Re:

animals.
animals
request
write
DELIVERY
community
CA
350 McAllister
should
Justice
and corporations.
supports is
CA
84
future,
the
Supreme
members
element
a
on t
NABR'
11
homes
national
of
wherever essential
94102
behalf
minimize
Street
and
the
&
however,
Court
the
and
s
of Electronic
and the
WASHINGTON
BRUSSELS LONDON NEW SAN BURLING
have
members
of
responsible nonprofit
biomedical
role
their
feasible,
Associate
FRANCISCO
YORK
vehicles,
the
any
a
the
of
strong
National
families.
pain
humane
use
Frontier
include
organization
should
and
use Justices
research
or
of
interest
distress
animals Association
LLP
have
This and
use
many
education and product safety testing. NABR's
Foundation
143 Cat. ADD. 4th 1284 (2006)
use
humane
of
in
lawless
to
harassed~
as
dedicated
the
California animals
the
and
improve
few
issues
animals
of
the
care
animals
and
("EFF"),
Biomedical
threatened
study
in
the
violent to
decided
and
academic
biomedical
may
advocating
quality
as
of
treatment
Professor
FAX TEL
possible R.JONES8
whole,
experience.
brand
by
and
Research
~,
~1e.8e~.6e6e
of
institutions,
the
5.581.1065
research,
assaulted
life
of
December

sound
living
of COV.COM
Court
in
Deirdre
animal
laboratory
of
Diagnostics,Inc. v. StopHuntingdonAnimal Cruelty USA,Inc.,

biomedical
("NABR")
Interest of the National Association of Biomedical Research

For
people
public
organisms
Oppositionto Requestfor Depublicationof Novartis Vaccinesand

of
higher
members
hospitals,
now
rights
K.
Appeals
20, 2006
RICHARD ALLEN .JONES

the Novar/is case. In recent years, animal rights activists have broken into and destroyed
and
private universities,medical andveterinaryschools,teachinghospitals,voluntary health
policy
and
to
is
agencies,professionalsocieties,pharmaceuticalcompaniesand other firms with an interestin
of
in
animals. It believes that biomedical researchers should develop and employ alternatives to the
Mulligan, and Jack I. Lerner that this Court depublish the opinion in the above captioned case

in
membership comprises more than 300 public and
(2005) not
would
invoking
1
anti-SLAPP employees' those
including laboratories companies orily the by
19-page of activism December
COVINGTON
Eco-terrorism:
"criminal
radical
immunize United
some
protection.
businesses,
California

Page 2

testimony.QQf.)
not
(written
The NABR's
In
Department
opinion.
is
Section
threats
a
be
animal
of 20,
States
and
escalating
EFF
statement
homes
facing
statute
conduct.
warranted
the
it
2006
individuals."
statement
&
from
Supreme

Hearing
members,
argues
techniques
of
230
vandalism
Department
The rights
143
BURLING
vigilante
and
of Justice
are
bodily
liability
merited
in
to
Cal.
.
Court
not
families.
Court

that .
even
activists,
frequency
a
calculated
(Oct.
of
Before
Congressional
harm,
App.
including
deployed
the
Barry
used of
animal
if Id.
Should
only
for
of
LLP
property
the
decision
4th
Justice
the
NABR
Given
the
and
by
Sabin,
26,2005))
brief Novartis
and
to
rights
at
Senate
in
universities,
concededly
Deny NABR's
aggressively
1301.
destructiveness.
a
the
has
belonging
mention
has
in
way
committee,
Section
activism
Novartis
very
Comm.
EFF's
identified
decision
worked
(available
SHAC
that
members
real
unlawful because
Chief
biomedical
renders
to
ReQuest
in
intimidate
on
v.
hard
USA's
the
threats
were
individuals.
California
SHAC
Env't
SHAC
not) because this Court's Barrett decision would control.
of
NABR's
because its analysis of Section 230 of the Communications
Chief
have
even
to
courts
the
acts
in
attempt for
facing
ensure
&
tension
USA,
research
USA
Counterterrorism
and
determined
of
ifSHAC
Pub. of
Deoublication
and
powerless
the
its members
harass
.
should
the
that
. defendant
to
Works,
followers.
elsewhere,
or,
with
Counterterrorism
companies
research
avoid
laws
even
USA
those
Barrett that
be
to have
109th
at http://epw.senate.2ov/lO9th/S~bin-
liability
depublished such
worse,
qualified
provide
and
they
whom
community,
Division
rely
been
and
(which
as
Cong.
appellant
must
on
publication
California's
by
courts to protect the safety and security of their workplaces, their employees, and their

it
targeted
timely
Section
as
the
identifies
--
take
of
it
a
is
the
SHAC and like-minded persons to coerce and intimidate
action to protect their employees if they are to continue their important biomedical research.

in
"provider" or "user" of an "interactive computer service" under Section 230, the statute would
as targets."J The statement noted that "[hJarassment of other businesses, and the employees of

of private information about such individuals, their spousesand even their young children, are

Decency Act conflicts with Barrettv.

The Novartis court's discussionof Section230 is containedin only one paragraphof its of
the Novartis case, as one of several animal rights extremist organizations engaged in a campaign

Rosenthal,40 Cal. 4th 33 (Nov. 20, 2006). Thereis no suchconflict. Moreover,depublication


4th employment, where
therefore not to
at followers document,
COVINGTON
Novartis
cc;
1289-91,
n.2.
at
merely
1296-1301.
Page 3
the
Kurt Mark
Daniel
Clerk
The
California
December
readily
was
employer
the
statements
and
significant
1296-98,
B.
Goldowitz,
of
and
H.
manifest,
evidence
Supreme

Opsahl
the its
&
distinguishable
Bookin
obstacles
20, 2006

These
BURLING
employees
Court
itself
1300-01.
posted
Court

and
ofSHAC
and
Esq.
principles
has
of
important
prevent
included
Appeal,
on
been
§
contentprovider." 47 U.S.C.

was
LLP
Moreover,
230(c)(1).
SHAC
from
USA's
the
injured,
the
are
First
portions
statements
Barrell,
concededly
employee
vitally
USA's
participation
District,
as
As
employees
increasingly confront coercive and intimidating
the
the
of
important
in
website.
made
the
court
which
from
court
unlawful
Division
Novartis
have in
noted, by
asserting
in
the
to Id.
an
SHAC
Navar/is
NABR'
claims
actions
been
at
unlawful
1
the
v.
1296,
SHAC
their
basis
USA
targeted
were
Attorneys
s
Emily Robert Richard
of v.
members
1300-01.
conspiracy
own SHAC
SHAC
for itself.
USA
solely
Johnson
because
SHAC
A.
rights.
A.
decision
for USA
USA's
Long,
143
as
premised
This
NABR
~---
they with
USA's
-&"/
took
Cal.
143
of
Henn
case
Vervtruly yours,

Jr.
followers,
their
concern
its
Ca!.
App.
pains
on
is
liability
be treatedasthe publisheror speakerof any informationprovidedby anotherinformation

For the foregoingreasons,this Court shoulddeny EFF's requestfor depublication.


motion, and (2) the recognition of an employer's standing to sue on behalf of its employees

App.
harassment by radical animal rights activists.

4th
(1) the application of settled principles of conspiracy liability to the analysis ofananti-SLAPP

to
speech, such as messagesposted to newsgroups on the Internet referring to doctors as "quacks"
Section230 providesthat "[n]o provider or userof an interactivecomputerserviceshall

and a redistributed email messagealleging that one doctor had stalked women. 40 Cal. 4th at 40
COVINGTON
&
BURLING
LLP
California Supreme Court
December
20,
2006
Page 4

CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
The undersigned member of the bar of this Court hereby certifies that true and correct
copies of the foregoing letter were served upon:
The
Clerk
of
the
Court
of
Appeal,
First
District,
Division
1
350 McAllister Street
San
Francisco,
CA
94102
Mark Goldowitz, Esq.
California Anti-SLAPP Project
2903 SacramentoStreet
Berkeley,
CA
94702
Attorney for Defendant-Appel/ant Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty,
USA, Inc.
Daniel
H.
Bookin
O'Melveny
&
Myers
LLP
Embarcadero Center West
275 Battery Street, 26th Floor
San
Francisco,
CA
94111-3344
Attorney for Plaintiffs-Respondents Chiron Corporation et 01.
Kurt
B.
Opsahl,
Esq.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San
Francisco,
CA
94110
Attorney
For
EFF,
Professor
Deirdre
K.
Mulligan
and
Jack
1
Lerner