National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress et al

Filing 27

ORDER KEEPING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IN EFFECT UNTIL RESOLUTION OF REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge William H. Orrick granting #5 Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery; finding as moot #6 Motion to Shorten Time. The temporary restraining order issued on July 31, 2015 remains in effect pending resolution of the preliminary injunction motion. A hearing on that motion is set for Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 4:00 p.m. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION, Case No. 15-cv-03522-WHO Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS, et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 ORDER KEEPING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IN EFFECT UNTIL RESOLUTION OF REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Re: Dkt. No. 3, 5 and 6 On Friday, July 31, 2015, plaintiff National Abortion Federation (“NAF”) filed and I 13 granted its motion for a temporary restraining order in order to preserve the status quo since the 14 moving papers led me to conclude that NAF was likely to prevail on the merits of its claims, the 15 balance of hardships tipped in its favor, it would be likely to suffer irreparable injury absent the 16 order, and issuance of the order was in the public interest. Because the defendants did not have an 17 opportunity to respond, I set a hearing on August 3, 2015 to allow a written response and oral 18 argument. See Dkt. No. 15. Pending the hearing, I ordered that defendants were restrained and 19 enjoined from: 20 (1) publishing or otherwise disclosing to any third party any video, audio, photographic, or other recordings taken, or any confidential information learned, at any NAF annual meetings; (2) publishing or otherwise disclosing to any third party the dates or locations of any future NAF meetings; and (3) publishing or otherwise disclosing to any third party the names or addresses of any NAF members learned at any NAF annual meetings. 21 22 23 24 25 26 Having now reviewed defendants’ arguments and declarations, and after the hearing, I 27 ORDER that the temporary restraining order remain in effect until I decide the motion for a 28 preliminary injunction. 1 Critically, the parties do not disagree about NAF’s central allegations: defendants assumed 2 false identities, created a fake company, and lied to NAF in order to obtain access to NAF’s 3 annual meetings and gain private information about its members. To do so, defendants entered 4 into confidentiality agreements in which they promised not to disclose to third parties “any 5 information which [was] disclosed orally or visually” to them or to other members without NAF’s 6 consent. Dkt. No. 3-7. Defendants also did not dispute that the Exhibitor Agreement that they 7 signed, giving them access to the NAF annual meetings, states that NAF would be entitled to 8 injunctive relief in the event of a breach because monetary damages would not be a sufficient 9 remedy. 10 Defendants recently revealed their true identities. They unquestionably breached their United States District Court Northern District of California 11 agreements with NAF, apparently for the purpose of disclosing what they believe are NAF’s 12 illegal activities. NAF seeks relief from this Court because defendants have obtained confidential 13 information in violation of the confidentiality agreements and threaten to publish this information, 14 and because publication would cause irreparable injury. The evidence presented by NAF, 15 including that defendants’ recent dissemination of videos of and conversations with NAF affiliates 16 has led to harassment and death threats for the individuals in those videos, is sufficient to show 17 irreparable injury for the purposes of the temporary restraining order. 18 Defendants concede that NAF has standing on at least some of the claims in the complaint. 19 Their other arguments to defeat or narrow injunctive relief may be renewed during the argument 20 over the request for a preliminary injunction, but they appear insufficient to tip the analysis of 21 either the merits or irreparable injury in their favor. Defendants’ counsel candidly agreed that he 22 was not aware of any case that has held that a party who (1) by false pretenses gains access to 23 confidential information, (2) promises to keep the information confidential, and (3) agrees that 24 breach of his agreement would subject him to injunctive relief, may nonetheless violate that 25 agreement because of his First Amendment rights. Neither am I. That set of issues is material to 26 my analysis. 27 28 The temporary restraining order that I issued on July 31, 2015 and repeated orally at the hearing and in the first paragraph of this Order remains in effect pending resolution of the 2 1 preliminary injunction motion. A hearing on that motion is set for Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 2 4:00 p.m. NAF shall file a motion for preliminary injunction by August 19, 2015. Defendants 3 shall file a response by August 24, 2015. NAF shall file a reply by August 26, 2015. 4 NAF also filed a motion for expedited discovery and a motion to shorten time for the 5 briefing and hearing on that motion. Dkt. Nos. 5, 6. I GRANT the motion for expedited 6 discovery. The motion to shorten time is MOOT. Discovery may be served by 12:00 p.m. on 7 Wednesday, August 5, 2015. The parties may submit any discovery disputes in a joint discovery 8 letter by 12:00 p.m. on Friday, August 7, 2015. If there are disagreements, a hearing will be held 9 at 4:00 p.m. on Friday, August 7, 2015. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2015 ______________________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?