Xiaoning et al v. Yahoo! Inc, et al

Filing 65

MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by Yahoo! Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 11/1/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B-E# 4 Exhibit F-H# 5 Appendix B# 6 Exhibit 1# 7 Exhibit 2-3# 8 Exhibit 4-12)(Petrocelli, Daniel) (Filed on 8/27/2007)

Xiaoning et al v. Yahoo! Inc, et al

Doc. 65

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 1 of 51

1 2 3 4 S 6 7

DANIEL M. PEA°ROCELLI s.^. ^^^^o^} dpetrocelli @ omm.com MATTHEW T. KLINE is.^. ^^^ ^^^^} mkline @ ornm.cam O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars , 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-60^ 5 Telephone : {BIO) 553-6700 Facsimile : (^ 1 ^) 246-6779 Attorneys for Defendant YAHOO!, INC and Special Appearing Defendant YAHOO! HONG KONG, LTD.

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COLTRT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION Case No. C07-02151. CW DEFENDANT YAHOO'., ING'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; .PROPOSED ORDER Date: Ñovember 1, 2007 Time: 2 p.m. Location: C ^ urtroom 2 Judge: Hon. Cla^^dia Wilken

10 ^ WANG XIAONING, YÚ LING, SHI TAO, and ADDITIONAL PRESENTLY I1 UNNAMED AND TO BE IDENTIFIED INDIVIDUALS, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. I4 YAHOOI INC., a Delaware Corporation, 15 ^ YAH001 HONG KONG, LTD., a Foreign Subsidiary of Yahoo I, AND OTHER I6 PRESENTLY UNNAMED AND TO BE IDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL 17 EMPLOYEES OF SAID CORPORATIONS, 18 Defendants. 19

20 l1 TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEÍR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT ON November 1, 2007, at 2 p.m., defendant Yah©o[, Inc. ("Yahoo!") will and hereby does move to dismiss, with prejudice, plaintii^s' second amended complaint {"complaint"), which was filed July 30, 20 0 7. Yahoo! brings this motion p^zrsuant to Rules 12{^){1), {6), and (7) of the Federal Fules of Civil Procedure. This motion is based on this n©tice of motion and motion, the fallowing memorandum of points and autharities, the pleadings on file in this matter, the reply memorandum Yahoo! intends to file, and any further argument the

27 ^) Court might allow. 28
C07-42151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 2 of 51

1

Without waiving its ab}eetí^n to the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this ease, specially appearing defendant Yahoo! Hong Kong, Ltd. ("YRKE"} joins this motion.

3 4 5

Dated: August 27, 207

DANIEL M. PETROCELLI MATTHEW T. KLINE O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP

6
7 8 9 IQ 11 12 13 14 I5

By: Daniel M. I'etrocelli Attorneys f©r Defe^dan^ Yalooí Ire and for specially appearing defenda^^t Yahoo! Hong Kong, Ltd.

1^
17 iß 19 20 2I

23 24 2S 26 27 28

col-o^ ^ s I cw
YAHOO?'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. A^. COMPL. -2

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 3 of 51

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 B. C. D. 1. 2. 3. ^. E. 1. 2. 3. V.
A.

I. ^. III. A.

INTRODUCTION ............................ . ... . .................................................................................. 1 St1MMARY OF PLAINTIFF`S' ALLEGATIONS ......................... ..................................... ... 2 PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS ARE NOT JUSTICIABLE ........................................................... 4 Thís Case Should Be Dismissed Under The Aet Of State Doctríne ................................ 5 1. 2. B. C. Thís Case Directly Challenges Sovereign Acts of the PRC ..................... ........................ S The ;S^ bb tino Factors Ali Favor Dísmíssal .................................................................... 8 This Case Should Be Dismissed Under Principles Of I^^ternational Ca^níty ..................... 12 Thís Case Should Be Dismissed Under The Políticai Question Doctrine ......................... 14 PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED "^O S Ì"ATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM .......................... 1 S Plaintiffs Have Failed To State A Claim Under The ATS ............................................. 1 S I. 2. 3. 4. Plaíntíffs' Ailegatíons Do Not Meet Sow's "I-Iigh Bar" ............................................... 15 The ATS Does Not Apply Extxaterritoríally .................................................................. 16 Thi Norms Plaíntíffs Invoke Are Not Actionable Under The ATS ............................... 16 Defendants Cannai Be Held Liable On Plaintiffs' ATS Theories ................................. 19 Plaíntíffs Have Failed to State a Claim Under the TVPR .................................................. 23 Plaintiffs I-íave Failed T© State A Ciaím Under ECPA ..................................................... 24 Plaíntíffs Have Failed to State a Claí^ Under California Law ...................................... 2^ The Foreign Affairs Doctrine Preempts Plaíntíffs' California Claims .......................... 27 Plaintiffs Cannot Establish Their Intentional Tort Claims ............................................. 28 Plaíntíffs Do Not State a Claim for Negligence .............. ............................................... 29

IV, A.

2a
21 22

Plaíntíffs Do Not State a Claim For Unfair Cotr^petitian ............................................... 31
Defendants' Communications With The PRC Are Protected Frorr^ Liability ................... 32 The Communications Are Protected Under Federal Law .............................................. 32 Plaìnt^ffs' Claírr^s Are Barred By California's Statutory Privilege ................................ 35 Plaíntíffs' International Law Claims Are Similarly Barred ........................................... 36

23
24 25 26 27 28

PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO JOIN AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY ..................................... 36 The PRC ís a Necessary Party .................. ...................................................................... ^ 7 The PRC Cannot be ^oíned ................................................................................................ ^ 7
^^

B.

C0^-©2í51 CW

PROt'OSED ORD^R ItE: YAHOO?'S MOT. ^n n^c^^c^ c^^ a ^ r. ^ ^ ^

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 4 of 51

TABLE OF CONTENTS {Co^^tínned) I 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 1I 12 C. VI. VII. The PRC ^s Ind^spensable ..................................^....................,........................................., 38 PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL MAY LACK AUTHORITY TO BRING THIS SUIT........... 39 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... ......................... .. 40

14 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 20 2I 22

23
24 25

27 28
^07- ^2151 CW

YAHOO!'S MOT, TO D1SM.ISS S^C. AM. ^n ^^^ ^

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 5 of 51

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 CASES 4 5 6 7 ß 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Abdull^hi v. Pfizer, Inc., 2002 WL X1082956, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2002} ........................20 Aldana v. Del ^^Ionte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2005) ...............17, 23 American fns. Ass 'n v. Garamendi, 539 tJ,S. 396 (2003) ...............................................14, 27, 28 Ameritech Corp. v. McC^nn, 403 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2005) .......................................................27 Anderman v. Fed. Rep. of Austria, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1098 {C.D. Cal. 2003} ...............................15 Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S._ 428 (19$9) .............................25 Arndt v, CBS AG, 342 F. Supp. 2d 132 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ...........................................................23 Artiglio v. Corning Inc., 18 Cal. 4th 604 (Cal. 1998) .................................................................3D Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ............................................................................................14 Baker v. Superior C1., 129 Cal. App. ^d 71 ^ (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) ............................................31 Banco Nacion^l de Cuba v. Sa^^atino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964) .......................................5, 8, 10, 11 Bell Att. Carp, v, Twombly, 1 27 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) .........................................................2, 15, 18 Berlin Democratic Club v. Rumsfeld, 410 F. Supp. 144 (D.C. D.C. 1970 ................................ 25 Beroiz v. Wahl, 84 Cal. App. 4th 485 (Cal . Ct. App. 2000) (Ivlexico} ........................................3^ Bigia v. Coca-Cola C^., 239 F.^d 440 (2d Cir. 2000} ................................................................12 Bohach v. City of Reno, 932 F. Supp. 1232 {D. Nev. 1996) .......................................................27 Bonneville Power Admin. v. FERC, 422 Fad 908 (9th Cir. 2000 .............................................24 Borg v. Boas, 231 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1956) ........................^.......................................................33 Boulware v. State ^^f 11^'ev. Dept. of Human Res., 960 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1992) ......................... 35 Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.^d 449 (9th Cir. 1994} ...............................^...^........................................3 Brvwn ^>. Edwards, 721 F.2d 1442 (5th Cír. 1984) .....................................................................33 Cabello v. Fernandez-Lacios, 402 F.3d 1148 {11th Cir. 2005) ..................................................24 Capri Trading Corp. v. Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Berhad, 812 F. Supp. 1041 (N.D. Cal. 1993) ....................................................................................................................38 Center for Biological Diversity v. FPL G^^oup, Inc., 2006 WL 2987634 at *4-6
{Cal. Superior Ct., Oct. 13, 2006} (Sabraw, J.} ...................................... .............. ................. 32 Central Bank of Denver, IV.A. v. First Interstate Bank ^f Denver, 11'.A. , 511 U.S.

I'á^e

1 ^4 (1994) ................................................................................................................. 21, 22, 24 Christensen v. Superior Ct., 54 Cal. 3d 868 {Cal. 1991) ............................................................29 Cohen v. McIntyre, 16 Cal. App. 4th X50 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) .................................................31 Calgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) ..............................................................................................................32 Conroy v. Regents of University of California, 151 Cal. App. 4th 132
(Cal. Ci. App. 2007) ..............................................................................................................29 Consal. Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 2D7 U.S. 541 (1908) ............................................................. 7 C07-02151 CW
PROPOSI;.D ORD.1R RE: YAHOO'S MOT. T^l ^^TC^^I^C CFf" A^^T ^^MPi. - íí -

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 6 of 51

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Contínuedj 1 2 3 4 Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc.; 403 F. Supp. 2d 109 {W.D. Wa. 2005) .......................... S, 14, l^, 24 Crosby v. Nat'1 Foreign Trede C^uncìl, 530 L1.S. 3^3 {2000} ...................................................14 Duro v. S^^perior Caurt, 1 S I Cal. App. 4th 1079 (2007) ............................................................ 31 Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal. 3d I97 {Cal. 1982) .................................................... 29 Davis v. United States, 192 F.3d 951 (10th Cir. 1999} ............................................................... 37 Dawavende^wa v. Stelt River Project Agr. Imp. & Potiwer Dìst., 27^ F.3d ^ 150 {9t1^ Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................... ............37, 38, 39 Dayton Coal & Iron Ca. v. Barton, 183 IJ. S. 23 (1 ^^ 1 } ............................................................... ^ Doe I v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 393 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2005) ....................................20, 23, 24 Doe v. Qi, 349 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ...................................... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ..,.passirr^ Doe v. Saravia, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1 ^ 12 (E.D. Cal. 2004) .......................................................17, 24 Doe ^. Unocal; Supp. Br. for the U.S. as Arr^icus Curiae, Case No. 00-56603 at 12-13 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2004) ..........................................................................................10 Dorn v. Mendelzon, 19^ Cal. App. 3d 933 {Cal. Ct. App. 1987) ................................................36 Dragon Capital Partners L. P. v. Merrill Lynch Capital Servs. Inc., 949 F. Supp. 1123 {S.D.N.Y. 1997) ...........................................................................................................3$ E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores, S.A., Case No. CV F OS-0101, 2006 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 47206, at *24 {E.D. Cal. June 30, 200} {Ecuador} .......................................3^ E. O. v. Openbaar Ministerie, HR 18 Apr. 1995, NJ 1ß9S, X19, reprod^^ced in 28 N^^^. Y.B. IN^r'^. L. 33b-38 (1997) ........................ ........................................................... ...19 Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v, Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.,
3^S U.S. 127 (1961) ..............................................................................................................35 EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U. S. 24 4 (1991) ......................... .1 ^

S
6 7

17 18

EEOC v. Peabody Western C^^^1 Co., 400 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2005) .......................................... 38 Enahoro v. Abubakar, 408 Fad 877 (7th Cir. 2005) ............................................................ l^, 17 Estate ^^f Ra^i^owitz, 114 Cal. App. 4th X35 (2003) .................................................................. 39 Estate of Stephens, 28 Cal. 4th ^^5 (Cal. 2002) .......................................................................... 29 Evers v. Custer County, 745 F.2d ^ 19^ (9th Cir. 1984) .............................................................35 Fermino v. Fedra, Inc., ^ Cal. 4th 701 {Cal. 1994) ....................................................................29

19
20 21 22 23 24 25

Fiol v. Doellstedt, SO Cal. App. 4th X318 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996} .................................................29 F^Itz v. More McCormack Lines, Inc.. 189 F.2d 537 (2d Cír. 1951} ........................................ 33 Ferro Precision, Inc. v. Int'1 Bus. Machs., 673 F2d 1045 (9th Cir. 1982) ................................35 Freedman v. America Online, Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 174 {D. Conn. 2005) ................................ 26 Friedman v. Merck & C^., 107 Cal. App. 4th 454 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003} .................................... 30 Úer^rd v. Ross, 204 Cal. App. 3d 968 {Cal. Ct. App, 1988} ...................................................... 28 Quinto v. Marcos, X54 F. Supp. 27^ {S.D. Cal. 198^} ............................................................^. 17 Hagberg v. Calif. Fed. Bank FSB, 32 Cal. 4th 350 {2004} ...................................................35, 3^

27

Namid v. Price Westerhouse, 51 F.3d 141 I (9th Cir. 1995) ........................................................ 2^ H^mìlton v. Martinelli ^^ Associ^tes,110 Cal. App. 4th ^ 012 {Cal. Gt. App. 2000 .................. 30 C07-©21^ 1 CW
YAHOO?'S MO`I'. TO ï^ISMISS SEC. AM. ^^^/fPT . - ^^^ -

28

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 7 of 51

TABLE OF AUTHORITÍES (C©nti^^neá}

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Herrfe ^. Estate of Marshall, 45 Cal. App. 4th 1761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) .....:..........................30 Holmes v. Eddy, â41 F.2d 477 (4th Cír. 1965) .................................^.........................................33 Howard v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. App. 4th 745 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992} ....................................... 28 Ibrahim v. Titan Corp., 391 F. Supp. 2d 10 {D.C. D.C. 2005) ...................................................20 Ileto v. Gluck, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (C.D. Cal. 2002} ...............................................................30 In re Calpine Corp. See. Litig., 288 F. STapp . 2d 1054 {^'.D. Cal. 2003) ......................................3 In re Estate of Ferdinand Maros, 25 F.3d 1467 (9th Cír. 1994) ................................................. 6 In re Estate of Marcos .Human Rights Litig.,978 F.2d 493 (9th Cír. 1992} ................................20 I^ re ^^^^arles, 158 U.S. S32 {1895) .................................................^.............................,12, 32, 33 In re Republic of the Phil., 309 F.3d 1143 (9th Cír. 2002} .........................................................37 In re Retail CÏtemists Corp, 66 F. 2d 605 {2d Cír. 1933) ............................................................39 In re South Af. Apartheid Litíg., 34^ F. Supp. 2d 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) .........................20, 21, 24 Interamerican Refining Corp, ^. Texaco Mar^^^ibo, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 1291

9
10 11 12 13 14 15

(D. D^1.197a) ....................................................................................................................... ^4

Joo v. Japan, 413 F.3d 45 (D,C. Cír. 2005) ................................................................................14 Kadic v.Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 {2d Cír. 1995) ............................................................................20 Khulum^ni et al, ^. ßar^l^y Nat'l Bank Ltd., et al., N^^. 05-2141 {2nd Cír. 2005) .....................21 Knight v. Jewett, Cal. 4th 296 (Cal. 1992) ............................................................................... 30 Korey S^^pply C©. ^. Lockheed M rtin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134 (Cal. 2003} ..............................32 Liu v. Republic of China, 892 F.2d 1419 {9th Cír. l98ß) ....................................................... $. 12 Maur v. lli^ther, Case No. OS Civ. 10270 {WHP }, Statement of 1^terest of the U.S. at 22 {S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2006} ....................................................................................11 Mc1?on^ld v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985) .33 Meredith v. I©^ía^ Trader, 279 F. 2d 471 (2d Ci*r. 19 ^ Q) .......................................................2, 39 Morales v. Coop. of'Am. Physicians, Inc, 180 F.3d 1060 (9th Ci*r. 1ß9ßj ..................................35 ^1!Ivser v. Ratiooff, 105 Cal. App. 4th 1211. (Cal. Ct. App. 2003} ............................................... 30 Mujka ^. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 381 F. Supp. 2d 1164 {C.D. Cal. 2005}...........23, 24 , 28 Noel v. River Hills Wilsons, Inc., 113 Cal. App. 4th 1363 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) ........................ 3 Oregon Natural Res. Council v. M^hl^, 944 F.2d 531 (9th Ci*r. 1991) .....................................35 Palmer v. Roosevelt Like Lag Owners Ass'n., 551 F. Supp. 486 {D. Wash. 1982) ................... 35 Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Services Co., 650 F.2d 408 {2d Cír. 1981) ............................ âS Pa^^o^k v. Williams, 322 U.S. 4 (194 4) .......................................................................................18 Price ^. Socialist P'eople's Libyan Ar^^ Jar^t^hiriya, 294 F.^d 82 {D.C. Cír. 2002j,.......,...18, 24 ^ue^ly of Santa Rosa v. Fall, 27^ U.S. 315 {1927) ................................................................2, 39 Quarles, Vagel v. Gruaz, 110 ^.^. 311 {1$84) ...........................................................................33 Radiation Sterilizers, Inc. v. U.S., 867 F. Supp. 1465 {E.D. Wash. 1994) .................................35 Ratzlaf v. United States, ^ 10 U.S. ÚS (1994} ............................................................................ 24
Cì7-(ì2151 CW
YAHOD!'S MDT. TO ©ISMISS SEC. AM. C' MAT . - ív -

â

1^
17 18

19
20 21 22

23
24 25 26 27 28

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 8 of 51

TABLE OF AUTIIORITIES (Continued) 1 2 3 4 5 Ricci v. State Bd. óf Law examiners, 569 F.2d 782 (3d Cir. 1978) ............................................37 Rivendell Forest Prods., Ltd. v. Canadian F©res^ Prods., 810 F. Supp. 111 ^ (D. Cola. 1993) .....................................................................................................................13 Rosenbloom v. Hanour Corp., ^^ Cal. App. 4th 1477 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) ..............................30 S^ffro v. dite Racing, Inc., 98 Cal. App, 4t^^ 173 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) .....................................30 Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993) .........................^..........................................25 Sarei v. Rio Tinto, 45^ F.^d lO^9 (9th Cir. 200^) ......................................................................20 Saudi Arabáa v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993) .............................................................................38 Shipping Ltd. v. Flota Mercante Gr^ncocolombíana , S A., 830 .2d 449
{2d Cir. 1987) ........................................................................................................................1 ^ Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005) ...............................................................................25 Societe Internationale Peur P^^°ticípations Industrielles et G'ammerciales,

b
7

8
9

SA. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958) ...............................................................................33, 35 Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiele v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522 {1987) .......................................................................................12 Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 ^.5. 692 (2004) ................................................................... passim So^^thern California Housing Rights Center ^. Los Feliz .Towet.s Homeowner^^
Assac.. 42^ F. Supp. 2d 1061 (C.D. Cal. 2005) .................................................................... 32 Swa^ley v. U. S., 37^ F.2d 857 {Ct. C1. 19^7) ............................................................................ 33 Tel-Oren v. Lybian Arab Republic, 72^ F,2d 774 {D.C. Cir. 19$4) ...........................................20 The Presbyterian Church af^Sud^n ^. Talisman Energy, Inc., Case No. 07-DD1^, at 5-12 (2d Cir. May 15. 2007 ) (--.^ ................................................................................passim Timberland Lumber Co. v. Bank ofAmerica, 549 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1977) .............................. ^4

10 11 12 13 14 15

17 18 19

U.S v. New York Tel. Ca., 434 U.S. 159 (1977} .........................................................................33 Underhill ^. Hernández, 1^8 U.S. 250 (1897) ..............................................................................5 United Mine Warkers afAm. v. Pennington, 381 U.S. X57 (1965) .............................................35 Únited States ^. A^gulo-Hurtado, l^5 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (N.D. Ga. 2001) ................................25 United States v. Brodie, i 74 F. Supp. 2d 294 {E.D. Pa. 2001) ............................................. 33, 34 United States v. Cotraní, 527 F.2d 708 (2d C ^ r. 1975} ......................................................... 25, 2^ United States v. Denman, 100 F.3d 399 {5th Cir. 1996) .............................................................26 United States v. Gatlin, 2 ] ^ F.^d 207 (2d Cír. 2000) .................................................................25 United States v. Hambrick, 55 F. Supp. 2d 504 (W.D. Va. 1999) ..............................................26 United States v. Luong, 471 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 200^) ..............................................................26 United States ^. Peterson, 812 F.2d 4$^ (9th Cir. 1987) ............................................................25 United States v. Smith, ^ Wheat. 153 {1820} ..................................................................17, 18, 22 United States v. Tascaníno, 500 F.2d 2^7 (2d Cir. 1974) ........................................................... 25 United States v. Wolf; 352 F. Supp. 2d 1195 {W.D. Okla. 2004) ...............................................39

2D
21 22

23
24 25 26 27 28

Video Int'1 Prod. v. Warner-Amex Cable Comm^'n, 85$ F.2á. 1075 {5th Cír. 1988) .................35 Vieth v. Jubelirer, 514 U.S. 267 (2004) ......................................................................................14 C07-02 t 51 C W YAHOOí'S MO"I'. TO DISMISS SAC. AM. ^n^^r^^ . -^-

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65
TABLE

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 9 of 51

of AU^^o^^^^^s
(C o^t^ nued)

1
2
3 4 5

Walker v. USAA CØSUaIty I^s. Co., 474 F. Sopp. 2d 116$ (E.D. Cal. 2007j ..............................32 Wang v. Yahoo', Inc., Order Denying Def. Yah©oi's Mot. for Early Case Mgt. Conf. & Order at 4:19-5:19 (filed July 31, 2007) ...............................................................4; 5 White v. Trans Univ^ LLC, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (C.D. Cal 2flOb) ........................................... 32 Wilbur v. Locke, 423 F.^d ^ ^^^ (9th Cir. 2005j ...................................................................36, 38 Wiwi v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEX1S 3293 at *37-40 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ....................................................................................................................20 Yahoo ^, Inc. v. La Lig^^e Contre Le Racisme et L'A ^ti.semitisme, 159 F. Sopp. 2d 1181 (Ñ.D. Cal. 2001}, reva o^^ other grounds, 433 F.3 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) ................6, 12 Zschet°nig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 {1968) ...................................................................................27 STATÚTES
18 U.S.C. § 1513 .........................................................................................................................25 1 8 U.S.C. § 2 ...............................................................................................................................21 18 U.S.C. § 2511 ...................................................................................................................24, 25 18 U.S.C. § 2701 ...................................................................................................................24, 27 18 U.S.C. § 2702 .......................................................................................................24, 25, 26.27

6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

18 U.S.C. § 2711 .........................................................................................................................26 28 U.S.C. § 1350........^ ....................................................................................................15, 21, 26 28 U.S.C. § 1350, n^te ..........................................................................................................23, 24 28 U.S.C. § 1 ^04 .......................................................................................................................... 37 28 U.S.C. §1605 ..........................................................................................................................37 Cal. Civ. Cede §47 .................................................... ................................................................. .27

Cat,. Clv. PROC. CODE § 367 ....................................................................................................... 39 Cagy. PRO. CODE § 4303 ............................................................................................................40 CAL. PROB. CODE §§ 4121 .................................................................. CAL. PROS. CODE §§ 4122 ............................ ....39 ...39

CAL. PROB. CODE §§ 4263 ..........................................................................................................39 CAL. PROB. CODE §§ 4459 ..........................................................................................................39 California Business and Professions Code § 17204 ..............................................................31 , 32 FED. R. Ctv. P. 12 ........................................................................................................................15 FED. R. Ctv. P. 17 ........................................................................................................................39 FED. R. Clv. P. 19 ..............^...................................................................................................37, 38 OTHER AUTHORITIES 1 993 Country Reports ©n Human Rights Practices, Bureau af Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State (Jan. 31, 1994) ...............................................1 4 4 W. BLac^s^o^E, COMMENTARIES o^^ ^1-11^ LAWS ol~ ENGLAND 67 (1769) at 67 .....................19 Administrative Measures on Internet Bulletin Services (P.R.C.} [attached in Exhibit B^.......,.^ ............................................... .............................................................. .......34
C07-02151 C W YAHOOI'S MOT. TO D1SMISS SEC. A ^v^ . ^^^

28

- V1 -

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 10 of 51

TABLE OF AUTHORITICES (C©ntí^ued) 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15
B^IRAU of EcoNO^ic AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS, OECD GUIDELINES FoR

MULTINATIONAL ENTERARISES 5 {2002} ...............................................................................13 Caroline Uyttendaele & Joseph Dumortíer, Free Speech ^n the Information Superhighway, 16 J. MARSHALL J. Co^i'u^^JR & INFO. L. 905 (1998) ...................................6 Civil Procedure Law {P.R.C.} [attached in Appendix B] ............................................................39 Criminal Law {P.R.C.j [attached in Appendix B] .......................................................................34 Cri^nínal Procedure Law {F.R.Gj [attached ín Appendix B] .....................................................34 Curtis A. Bradley et al., Sosa, Custam^rylnternational Law and the Continuing Relevance of Eríe, ^ 20 HARV. L. REQ. 870, 924-29 {2007} ......................................20, 21 , 22 Darin Valsman, Turkey's Restriction, Europe's Problem ^ 2-3 .................................................. ^ Evans J.R. Rcvere, Acting Assistant Sec'y for East Asian and Pacific Affaixs, The Bush Administration's Second-Term Foreïgn Policy Toward East Asia, Remarks t^ Center for Strategic Int'1 Studies Conference { May 17, 2005] ............................9 Judgment of Huang Qi, Congressional-Executive Comr^a^ttee on China Virtual Academy, http://www.cecc.goo/pages/vírtualAcad/exp/expsecurity.php .............................. ^ Letter fram Hon. John B. Bellinger III to Hon. Peter D. Kesler re: I i Weix^^m, et al. v. Bo Xilaí, No. 1:04CV00649 {DDC} (July 24, 2006)..........-^ ..........................................9 Measures for the Administration af Internet E-mail Services {P.R.C.} [attached ^n Appendix B] ..........................................................................................................................34 Marton Sklar on Yahoo! human rights lawsuit (Apr. 21 , 2007}, (webcast at O ^ :23 8:1b} ............................................................................................ ...........6

1^
ï7 18 19 20

Office of the Prí^^acy Comm'r for Personal Data, Hong Kogg, Report Published under § 48(2} of the Personal Data {Prívacyj Ordinance (Cap. 486j, Report No.: R07-361 9 (Max. 1 4, 2007) .............................................................................................. 3 Opinions af the Supreme People's Curt on Ccrtain Issues Concerning Application of PRC Civil Procedure Law 2002 {P.R.C.} [attached ín Appendix B] ................................39 Ratifications Of The Fundamental Human Rights Conventions By Country,"htt :'1www.ilc^.or^flílolex/ensFlíshfdocsldeclwo.^^ld.htm ......................................... I9 Regulations on "I"eleco^nmunicatíons {P.R.C-) [attached in Appendix B] .................................. 34 Reporters Without Borders Briefs for July 2007, Spain: Gara a^d Ueia Journalists
Nvw Face Charges of "Insulting King ................................................................................... ^

RESTATEIv3ENT (S^coND} oi~ TORTS § 598 cmt. d (1977} ............................................................33 RESTAThMENT (THIRD} OF F©REiC^N RELATIONS (1987} ..........^ ...........................................passirr
22

Robert B. Zoellíck, Deputy Sec'y of State, Whither China: From Membership to

23 24 25 26 27 28

Respv^sibility?, Remarks to National Committee on U.S.-China Relations {Sept. 21 , 2005} ................................................

.......9

Ronald J. Kxotoszynski, A Comparative Perspective on the First Amendment, 78 Ttr^,. L. REV. 1549 (2004j ..................................................................................................6 Scott Shane, Suit Over C.LA. Program, N.Y. TIMES, May 31, 2007 ..........................................11 Sionaídh Douglas-Scatt, The Hatefulness vfP^rotected Speech, 7 WM. & MARY BILL OF Ris. J. 305 (1999} ................................................................................................6, 1 7 State Security Law {P.R.C.j [attached in Appendix B] ..............................................................34

cal-a^ ^s ^ cw
YAHOO!'S MOT. TO t?ISMISS SEC. AM. ^^^^pT

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 11 of 51

TABLE 4F AUT^OR^TIES (Continued)
1

2 3 4

Statement of Interest of the United States , Doe v. pí, Case No. C02 0672 CW (EMC) (filed Jan. 16, 2004)..--^ ...............................................................................................9 Statement of Interest of U.S., Doe v. Qi at 8 (death penalty example ) .................................................................................11 ThoncTas J. Christensen, llep Tty Assistant Sec'y for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S.-China Relations , Statement Before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee an Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment (Mar. 27, 2007} ......................................................................................................... ................... 9 U.S. Dept of State, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Background Note: China (Jan. 2007) .............................................................................................. 9 William J. Clinton, Remarks by the President at Signing of China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (Oct. 10, 2000) .................................................................................9 World Organization for Human Rights USA, "Major lawsuit filed by Human Rights USA against Yahoo ! highlights the internet company's complicity ín human rights abuses in China (Apr. 18, 2Q07 ) ......................................................................10 RULLS Federal Rules of Givil Procedure , Rule 12 ...........................................................................passim Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , Rule 19 ....................................... ............................................. 2

6
7 8 9 10 11

12
13 14

16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22
2á

24 25 26 27 28

ca^-©z s a cw va ^ oo!^s ^ o ^ . ^ o Ds^ ss s^c. A^ .
' 1 MAT ,

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 12 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I.

INTRODUCTION This is a lawsuit by citizens of China imprisoned for using the internet in China to express

political views in violation of China law. It is a political case challenging the laws and actions of the Chinese government. It has no place in the American courts. Yahoo! deeply sympathizes with the plaintiffs and their families and does not condone the suppression of their rights and liberty by their government. But Yahoo! has no control over the sovereign government of the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), the laws it passes, and the manner in which it enforces its laws. Neither Yahoo! Inc. or YHKL therefore, can be held liable for the independent acts of the PRC just because a former Yahoo! subsidiary in China obeyed a lawful government request for the collection of evidence relevant to a pending investigation. There are numerous legal grounds why plaintiffs' complaint cannot proceed: First, plaintiffs' claims are not justiciable under Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), the act of state doctrine, principles of international comity, and the political question doctrine. The complaint challenges the actions of the PRC in enacting and enforcing laws proscribing certain types of speech deemed inimical to its government. Litigating this case thus risks violating international law principles of sovereignty, interfering with U.S. foreign policy, and jeopardizing the U.S. law enforcement interests. Second, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), the Torture Victim Protection Act ("TVPA"), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), and the California laws on which they rely. Among other infirmities, plaintiffs' ATS and TVPA theories are not actionable against corporate actors, ECPA does not apply extraterritorially, and plaintiffs' California claims are preempted. Third, plaintiffs' claims contravene federal, California, and international law--each of which expressly protects defendants from civil liability for communicating with law enforcement officials regarding investigations. Whether they responded to the PRC's requests voluntarily or under compulsion of PRC law (the complaint seeks to obscure that it was plainly the latter), defendants' conduct was plainly privileged. Fourth, the complaint files to join the PRC or PRC officials who allegedly harmed
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL.

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 13 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

plaintiffs, and who are "necessary" and "indispensable" parties under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule"). Fifth, this case should not proceed unless counsel of record for plaintiffs establish their authority to represent plaintiffs in this case. See Pueblo of Santa Rosa v. Fall, 273 U.S. 315, 319 (1927); Meredith v. Ionian Trader, 279 F. 2d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 1960). II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS' ALLEGATIONS1 Plaintiff Wang Xiaoning. From 2000 to 2002, Wang worked in mainland China as a author and editor of pro-democracy publications. Compl., ¶¶ 32-35. PRC authorities arrested Wang and charged, tried, and convicted him of "incitement to subvert state power," advocating the establishment of an alternative political party, and communicating with an overseas enemy organization. Id. ¶¶ 37-40. Wang was taken into custody on September 1, 2002, charged on September 30, 2002, tried and convicted in July 2003, and sentenced to a 10-year prison term on September 12, 2003. See id. ¶¶ 37-41. While in prison, Wang suffered brutal treatment at the hands of the PRC as punishment for his political activities. See id. ¶¶ 39, 43-44. Wang is allowed only limited contact with outsiders; it is unclear whether he has any contact with his counsel or authorized this lawsuit. See id. ¶ 45. Plaintiff Shi Tao. Shi Tao worked as a reporter and editor at the Contemporary Business News in mainland China and wrote articles advocating political reform. See id. ¶¶ 52-55. On April 20, 2004, from his place of employment, Shi published anonymously a document the PRC considered to be a "state secret." See id. ¶¶ 55-56, 62-63. PRC authorities arrested Shi on November 23, 2004 and charged him on December 14; he pled guilty on March 11, 2005. See id. ¶¶ 57-61. On April 30, 2005, Shi was sentenced to 10 years in prison and is currently incarcerated at a Chinese prison known for abusive treatment of prisoners. See id. ¶¶ 62-66. Given the vague allegations about his specific circumstances, it is unclear whether Shi's counsel have contact with him or the authority to represent him. See id. ¶¶ 59, 65-66. Before filing this suit, Shi brought an action against YHKL before the Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner. See id. Solely for purposes of this motion, the facts alleged in plaintiffs' complaint, filed July 30, 2007, are all assumed true. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1985 (2007).
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL.
1

-2-

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 14 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

¶ 64. The Commissioner rejected Shi's claim. See id. Yu Ling. Yu Ling is Wang's wife. See id. ¶ 11 She and "her family have endured severe psychological and emotional suffering as a direct result of [Wang's] arbitrary detention." Id. ¶ 46. She has been "subjected to continued police surveillance," including seizure of her computer. Id. ¶¶ 47-48. Yu's "emotional injuries have caused [her] physical injury," and devoting time to Wang's legal defense has cost her time and money. Id. ¶¶ 50-51. Yahoo! and YHKL. Plaintiffs have sued Yahoo! and YHKL. Yahoo! is a Delaware corporation and its primary place of business is Sunnyvale, California. Yahoo! is an internet portal and provides email and other internet-based services. YHKL, which is based in Hong Kong, is Yahoo!'s indirect subsidiary and has a portal business in Hong Kong. See id. ¶¶ 14-15. Plaintiffs allege Yahoo! and YHKL controlled the operations of Yahoo! China, an internet portal serving mainland China. See id. ¶¶ 15-17. Having used Yahoo! China email accounts and group lists to publish political literature, see id. ¶¶ 33-34, 55, plaintiffs rest their claims on two pivotal allegations: defendants "willingly" provided information regarding plaintiffs' online activities to the PRC and were "instrumental" to "causing the Plaintiff[s'] arrest and criminal prosecution," id. ¶¶ 2, 42, 44, 62. Although the success of this motion in no way turns on refuting these two assertions, the very documents cited in the complaint undermine both.2 As the Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner concluded in Shi's case, see Compl. ¶ 64 (citing ruling), "the disclosure of Information in the circumstances of the case was not a voluntary act initiated by [YHKL] but was compelled under the force of PRC law." 3 (All emphases added unless otherwise indicated.) And, plaintiffs' criminal judgments do not show that defendants divulged plaintiffs' identities, caused On a motion to dismiss, the court may consider documents described in, but not attached to, a complaint. See Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994); In re Calpine Corp. Sec. Litig., 288 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1076 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 3 Exhibits are attached in Appendix A. See Ex. A (Office of the Privacy Comm'r for Personal Data, Hong Kong, Report Published under § 48(2) of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486), Report No.: R07-3619, at ¶ 8.25 (Mar. 14, 2007), http://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/publications/files/Yahoo_e.pdf ("Hong Kong Commissioner's Report")). The Report also explains that Yahoo! China's Privacy Policy and Terms of Service clearly informed users that their information would be disclosed in response to law enforcement requests. Id. at 8.37-8.39.
2

C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL.

-3-

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 15 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

them to be investigated, or provided proof essential to their convictions.4 Claims and Relief Sought. The complaint contains claims under the ATS, TVPA, and ECPA; a variety of international law sources; and six California law theories. See Compl. at 3-6. Shi asserts 11 causes of action. Wang asserts 10; unlike Shi, he does not make a forced labor claim. See id. at ¶¶ 69-136. Yu asserts three California law claims--for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and unfair business practices. See id. at ¶¶ 109-27. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as declaratory relief determining defendants violated international law, injunctive relief to prevent defendants from complying with future requests for information, and "affirmative action by the Defendants to secure the release of the detainees." III. PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS ARE NOT JUSTICIABLE Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 728 (2004), instructs courts to proceed in ATS cases with "great caution." Trial courts have a duty of "vigilant door keeping," obligating them to consider a variety of prudential concerns before exercising jurisdiction. Id. at 729; see also Wang v. Yahoo!, Inc., Order Denying Def. Yahoo!'s Mot. for Early Case Mgt. Conf. & Order at 4:19-5:19 (filed July 31, 2007) ("Order"). As this Court has recognized, "[a]lthough it is one thing for American courts to enforce limits on their own government's power, . . . it is `quite another to consider suits under rules that would go so far as to claim a limit on the power of foreign governments over their own citizens, and to hold that a foreign government or its agents has transgressed those limits.'" Id. at 5:1-6 (quoting Sosa). Three justiciability doctrines that reflect these constitutional and prudential concerns--the act of state doctrine, the doctrine of international comity, and the political question doctrine--compel dismissal here.

Wang's and Shi's judgments--both in the original Chinese and translated into English--are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively. Both judgments cite various sources of evidence-- including physical evidence, witnesses, and plaintiffs' confessions--on which plaintiffs' convictions rested. With regard to defendants, all Wang's judgment states is that YHKL provided records that showed that two Yahoo! China email accounts had been set up by users in China. See Ex. B at 6, ¶ e, f. And in Shi's case, the judgment shows that the information YHKL provided merely helped confirm that an email in the case was sent from Shi's place of employment--not that Shi sent it. Id. at 4-5, Compl. ¶ 62. Indeed, contrary to the suggestion that the PRC learned about Wang's identity from defendants, the judgment discloses that Wang published articles using his real name. See Ex. B at 11, ¶ 4 and 21, ¶ a.
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL.

4

-4-

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 16 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A.

This Case Should Be Dismissed Under The Act Of State Doctrine.

The act of state doctrine provides that "[e]very sovereign State is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign State, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory." Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 252 (1897). This doctrine is rooted in the recognition that "[t]he conduct of the foreign relations . . . is committed by the Constitution to the Executive and Legislative . . . departments." Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 423 (1964). 1. This Case Directly Challenges Sovereign Acts of the PRC. As this Court recently observed, "[t]he claims in this case directly implicate the propriety of actions taken by the Chinese government." Order at 6:22-27. Indeed, the case "require[s] the court to sit in judgment" of at least three sovereign acts of the PRC. Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 403 F. Supp. 2d 1019, 1032 (W.D. Wa. 2005). Each is addressed in turn. a. Judging PRC Speech Laws. By its express terms, plaintiffs' complaint is a facial attack on criminal laws in China banning political speech. One of the complaint's recurring and critical allegations is that the PRC had no right to detain plaintiffs for publishing political literature.5 However, "free speech" rights as we understand them in the United States are not the law in China.6 As one Chinese court has summarized the law:

See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 23 ("As a result of the expression of their views, these `dissidents' are subjected to arbitrary arrest, criminal prosecution, and persecution in violation of numerous protections for fundamental rights involving the exercise of freedom of expression, association, press and assembly under the Chinese Constitution and international law."); ¶ 27 ("by helping the censors, and by identifying people who could be accused of anti-government speech or communication, the Defendants would be placing many innocent individuals, who were merely expressing their views or communicating with others, at risk of arbitrary arrest, prolonged arbitrary detention, forced labor, and torture as a result of their lawful exercise of free speech and free association rights"); ¶ 85 ("These acts of arbitrary arrest and long-term detention suffered by the Plaintiffs designated in this Third Claim for Relief, including arrest and detention for an unlawful purpose in violation of the rights to freedom of speech, association, and assembly"). 6 Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution recognizes "freedom of speech" as a right citizens enjoy, but other parts of the Constitution and PRC law limit this right and prohibit various forms of speech. Translations of these and other Chinese law sources cited in this motion are included in Appendix B accompanying this motion. See Appendix B, ex. 1, Constitution of the PRC, Articles 1, 28, 51, and 53; ex. 2, State Security Law (P.R.C), Article 4; ex. 4 Criminal Law (P.R.C.), Article 105; ex 6, Law on Protecting State Secrets (P.R.C.), Article 24; ex. 10, Management Provisions on Electronic Bulletin Services in Internet (P.R.C.), Article 9.
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL.

5

-5-

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 17 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

"This court believes that freedom of speech is a political right of the citizens of China, but when exercising this right, no one may harm the interests or security of the nation, and may not use rumor mongering or defamation to incite subversion of the national regime. Therefore, the court takes note that the defense counsel takes a standpoint that only stresses the right of the accused, and ignores his duties."7 No matter how strenuous our disagreement, every sovereign nation has a right to regulate speech within it borders. See Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1186 (N.D. Cal. 2001), rev'd on other grounds, 433 F.3 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). Because American law is unique in the protections it afforded to free speech--even among Western democracies--courts have recognized that our First Amendment does not reflect customary international law. See Guinto v. Marcos, 654 F. Supp. 276, 280 (S.D. Cal. 1986) "(cited favorably by In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, 25 F.3d 1467, 1475 (9th Cir. 1994)).8 Despite all this, plaintiffs' claims all proceed from the premise that international law is violated not only when the PRC acts to enforce its laws prohibiting political speech, but when companies assist the PRC in enforcing these laws.9 Endorsement of this theory of liability requires the Court to consider and declare unlawful the Chinese government's prohibitions on Judgment of Huang Qi, Congressional-Executive Committee on China Virtual Academy http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/exp/expsecurity.php 8 See also, e.g., Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, The Hatefulness of Protected Speech, 7 WM. & MARY BILL OF RTS. J. 305, 309 (1999) (As "Ronald Dworkin recently commented: `The United States stands alone even among democracies, in the extraordinary degree to which its [C]onstitution protects freedom of speech and of the press.'"); Ronald J. Krotoszynski, A Comparative Perspective on the First Amendment, 78 TUL. L. REV. 1549 (2004) (German speech protections more limited than those in the U.S.); Caroline Uyttendaele & Joseph Dumortier, Free Speech on the Information Superhighway, 16 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 905 (1998) (free speech more limited in Europe; speech subject to restrictions when it harms the public order); Daria Vaisman, Turkey's Restriction, Europe's Problem ¶¶ 2-3, http://www.opendemocracy.net/ democracy-turkey/free_speech_3952.jsp (French law makes it a crime to insult foreign heads of state); Reporters Without Borders Briefs for July 2007, Spain: Gara and Deia Journalists Now Face Charges of "Insulting King," http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id article=23090 (journalists who published satire of king "face[d] charges of `insulting the king' under article 491 of the criminal code"). 9 See, e.g., supra n.5; Compl. ¶ 124 ("Defendants have also acted contrary to public policy by infringing upon the freedom of speech and expression of the general public."); Morton Sklar on Yahoo! human rights lawsuit (Apr. 21, 2007), http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=7693 85554&channel=27638673 (webcast at 06:23-8:16) ("The U.S. Government outlaws these kinds of behaviors [against people] who are in favor of free press and free speech. So when Yahoo! says that the people involved are just abiding by Chinese law, that may be the case, but the laws are unlawful in terms of U.S. and international law and U.S. law requires just the opposite. . . . Foreign governments have the right to request information from Yahoo! pursuant to court orders . . . . China is using it to persecute people for the communication of ideas. And that's not something the United States government or a United States corporation should go along with.").
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL.
7

-6-

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 18 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

speech. This would be a direct affront to the PRC's sovereignty. See Yahoo!, 169 F. Supp. 2d at 1186 ("A basic function of a sovereign state is to determine by law what forms of speech and conduct are acceptable within its borders."). b. Judging the PRC's Treatment of Plaintiffs. The complaint also requires the Court to question the PRC's criminal cases against Wang and Shi--from the lawfulness of their arrest, to the fairness of their trials and appeals, to their treatment in prison. See Compl. ¶¶ 37-45, 57-63. Plaintiffs allege that the PRC violated their rights at every turn: "[h]igh level officials of the PRC are involved in the abuses"; the PRC is "falsely imprison[ing]" plaintiffs. Id. ¶¶ 45, 141, 105-08. Plaintiffs even ask this court to order defendants to take "affirmative action . . . to secure [plaintiffs'] release." Id. at 34 ¶ (d). Adjudicating the legitimacy of plaintiffs' prosecution, conviction, and incarceration--much less granting quasi-habeas corpus relief--openly and directly challenges the PRC's sovereignty. c. Judging the PRC's Ability to Gather Evidence. Plaintiffs also seek an order that would require defendants to selectively violate China's laws, including orders compelling disclosure of evidence. See Compl. at 6 (plaintiffs seek "injunctive relief to stop any further disclosures of user information in order to prevent such . . . abuses from taking place in the future"). Defendants cannot be expected, let alone ordered, to violate another nation's laws. Like any sovereign state, China requires companies operating within its jurisdiction to comply with its laws. Cf. Dayton Coal & Iron Co. v. Barton, 183 U.S. 23, 24 (1901). This sovereign power, as has long been recognized, includes the right to compel the production of evidence. See Consol. Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 207 U.S. 541, 552 (1908). Article 45 of the PRC Criminal Procedure Law provides that "the public security organs shall have the authority to collect or obtain evidence" in connection with investigations. 10 Anyone who receives such a request "shall provide truthful evidence," and may not "falsif[y], conceal[], or destroy[]" evidence. Compliance with these requests is mandatory and may not be challenged in the Chinese courts.11 It would be
10 11

Appendix B, Tab 4. Section 2 of Article 1 of the People's Supreme Court's Judicial Interpretations on the People's Republic of China Administrative Procedure Law (Appendix B, Tab 9) specifically provides that the people' courts shall not accept cases initiated by citizens, legal persons, or other organizations -7-

C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL.

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 19 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a serious affront to the PRC's sovereignty even to entertain the issue of whether companies can disregard such requests. 2. The Sabbatino Factors All Favor Dismissal Courts consider four factors in determining whether to dismiss on "act of state" grounds: · First, courts examine the "degree of codification or consensus concerning [the] particular area of international law." Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at 428. The less consensus, the stronger the argument is for declining jurisdiction. · Second, courts consider the case's impact on "foreign relations"; the greater the impact, the greater the "justification" for dismissing the case. Id. · Third, a court has greater authority to hear a case if "the government which perpetrated the challenged act of state is no longer in existence." Id. · Fourth, courts in the Ninth Circuit consider "whether the foreign state was acting in the public interest." Liu v. Republic of China, 892 F.2d 1419, 1432 (9th Cir. 1989). If the state was so acting, the court has less leeway to proceed with the case.12 The First Factor. There is nothing remotely close to "codification or consensus" under international law to support plaintiffs' claims. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at 428. As explained in Section V.E, infra, U.S., California, and international law all treat communications with law enforcement officials as privileged acts that cannot give rise to liability. It is likewise an axiom of international law that "a state may not require a person . . . to refrain from doing an act in another state that is required by the law of that state." RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS § 441 (1987). The first Sabbatino strongly favors dismissal. The Second Factor. The implications of this case for foreign relations--the most important Sabbatino factor, see Doe v. Qi, 349 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1296 (N.D. Cal. 2004)--can concerning the acts of state public security agencies and state security bureaus that are authorized by the PRC Criminal Procedure Law. Article 28 of Provisions on the Procedures for the Handling of Administrative Review Cases by Public Security Bodies states that certain cases, including "objections concerning criminal judicial acts such as compulsory measures and criminal investigation measures carried out in accordance with laws in criminal cases" may not be heard. 12 Although it militates in favor of dismissal, defendants disagree that this fourth factor is an appropriate consideration under Sabbatino. Because Ninth Circuit law included it, defendants simply note their objection to preserve it.
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL.

-8-

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 20 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

hardly be overstated. A cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy is maintaining strong and carefully managed relations with the PRC.13 Unlike rogue or smaller states, often implicated in ATS cases, China is a world power, a significant trading partner, and a fellow permanent member of the U. N. Security Council.14 It can be expected to act decisively in protecting its sovereignty and guarding against perceived encroachments on its authority.15 Both the Executive Branch and China have expressed the strong view that the United States must manage its relations with the PRC without interference from the courts.16 Though openly critical of China's human rights record, the United States has made the policy judgment to actively engage China, promote investment there by American companies, and take a "carrot" rather than "stick" approach to urging reform.17 As the Executive Branch has consistently urged, ATS cases can threaten U.S. foreign policy toward countries like China, See, e.g., Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Sec'y of State, Whither China: From Membership to Responsibility?, Remarks to National Committee on U.S.-China Relations (Sept. 21, 2005), available at http://www.state.gov/s/d/former/zoellick/rem/53682.htm. 14 See, e.g., Thomas J. Christensen, Deputy Assistant Sec'y for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S.-China Relations, Statement Before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment (Mar. 27, 2007), http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls /rm/2007/82276.htm; Evans J.R. Revere, Acting Assistant Sec'y for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, The Bush Administration's Second-Term Foreign Policy Toward East Asia, Remarks to Center for Strategic Int'l Studies Conference (May 17, 2005), http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2005/46420.htm; UN Security Council, Membership in 2007, http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp. 15 See, e.g., U.S. Dep't of State, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Background Note: China (Jan. 2007), http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm. 16 See, e.g., Ex. E (Statement of Interest of the United States, Doe v. Qi, Case No. C02 0672 CW (EMC), Tab A at 2-3, 7 (filed Jan. 16, 2004) (condemning human rights abuses by PRC, but urging that diplomatic means are far more effective than litigation)); Ex. F (Letter from Hon. John B. Bellinger III to Hon. Peter D. Keisler re: Li Weixum, et al. v. Bo Xilai, No. 1:04CV00649 (DDC) at 2-3 (July 24, 2006) (same)). 17 See, e.g., id.; William J. Clinton, Remarks by the President at Signing of China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (Oct. 10, 2000), http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/101000speech-by-president-at-signing-of-china-pntr.htm ("the more China opens its markets, the more it unleashes the power of economic freedom, the more likely it [will] be to more fully liberate the human potential of its people"); U.S. Dep't of State, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Background Note: China (Jan. 2007), http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm ("For seven consecutive administrations, U.S. policy has been to encourage China's opening and integration into the global system. As a result, China has moved from being a relatively isolated and poor country to one that is a key participant in international institutions . . . . The State Department's annual China human rights and religious freedom reports have noted China's well-documented abuses of human rights . . . . . At the same time, China's economic growth and reform since 1978 has improved dramatically the lives of hundreds of millions of Chinese, increased social mobility, and expanded the scope of personal freedom.").
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL.
13

-9-

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 21 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

where "constructive [economic] engagement has been advocated as a means of advancing human rights." Ex. D (Doe v. Unocal, Supp. Br. for the U.S. as Amicus Curiae, Case No. 00-56603 at 12-13 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2004). This case is a prime example. It is an admitted effort by plaintiffs and their counsel to "convince other U.S. companies to think twice before doing business with the Chinese government."18 Indeed, the very purpose of this lawsuit is to attack specific laws in China and the PRC's ability and authority to enforce them. This Court's opinion and analysis in Doe v. Qi are instructive. In Qi, 349 F. Supp. 2d at 1264, plaintiffs sued two PRC officials, accusing them of commanding the torture of proponents of Falun Gong. After considering the views of the U.S. and Chinese governments regarding the policy impact of the case, the Court declined to dismiss the case in its entirety, choosing instead to craft a narrow default judgment affording limited declaratory relief. See id. at 1266. The Court reasoned that the PRC officials' acts of torture so clearly violated Chinese and international law, as well as U.S. policy statements condemning such torture, that it would not contradict U.S. foreign policy to declare that the two officials had deviated from these norms. See id. at 126667. Here, based on plaintiffs' strategic framing of their complaint, no such compromise is available. Plaintiffs have chosen not to name the PRC, PRC prison guards, or PRC law enforcement personnel as defendants. But considering a declaration on whether defendants did anything wrong--let alone the monetary and injunctive relief plaintiffs seek--does not obviate litigating the legitimacy of Chinese laws regulating speech and the PRC's ability to enforce them. Undertaking such litigation might well be viewed as a profound rebuke of the PRC and risk poisoning U.S. relations with a significant world power. It might also provoke the PRC into precipitously reacting to the perceived encroachment by cracking down more harshly on political speech or even harming plaintiffs. Cf. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at 423 (act-of-state doctrine rests on

World Organization for Human Rights USA, "Major lawsuit filed by Human Rights USA against Yahoo! highlights the internet company's complicity in human rights abuses in China, (Apr. 18, 2007), http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/search/label/human%20rights.
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL.

18

- 10 -

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 65

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 22 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the "strong sense of the Judicial Branch that its engagement in the task of passing on the validity of foreign acts of state may hinder rather than further this country's pursuit of goa