Xiaoning et al v. Yahoo! Inc, et al

Filing 98

Declaration of Matthew T. Kline in Support of 97 Memorandum in Opposition, to Plaintiffs' Motion to Enlarge Time filed byYahoo! Inc.. (Related document(s) 97 ) (Kline, Matthew) (Filed on 9/19/2007)

Xiaoning et al v. Yahoo! Inc, et al

Doc. 98

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 1 of 126

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

DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (S.B. #97802)
[e-mail] [e-mail]

MATTHEW T. KLINE (S.B. #211640) O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue Of The Stars Los Angeles, California 90067-6035 Main Number: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant YAHOO!, INC. and Specially Appearing Defendant YAHOO! HOLDINGS (HONG KONG), LTD. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION WANG XIAONING, YU LING, SHI TAO, and ADDITIONAL PRESENTLY UNNAMED AND TO BE IDENTIFIED INDIVIDUALS, Plaintiff, v. YAHOO!, INC., a Delaware Corporation, YAHOO! HONG KONG, LTD., a Foreign Subsidiary of Yahoo!, AND OTHER PRESENTLY UNNAMED AND TO BE IDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES OF SAID CORPORATIONS, Defendant. Case No. C07-02151 CW DECLARATION OF MATTHEW T. KLINE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT YAHOO!, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

I, MATTHEW T. KLINE, declare: 1. I am an attorney in the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, attorney of record

for defendant Yahoo!, Inc. ("Yahoo!") and specially appearing for defendant Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong), Ltd. ("YHKL"). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3(c), I submit this declaration in support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Enlarge Time. Except where otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. 2. A true and correct copy of Defendant Yahoo!, Inc's Motion to Dismiss is attached

C07-02151 CW DECL. OF M. KLINE
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 2 of 126

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

hereto as Exhibit A. 3. A true and correct copy of Defendant Yahoo!, Inc's Special Motion to Strike

Plaintiffs' State Law Causes of Action Pursuant to the California Anti-SLAPP Statute is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4. I participated in the meet-and-confer telephone conferences and other

communications with Plaintiffs' counsel on September 7, 10, 12 and 13 referenced by Morton Sklar in his Declaration Supporting Plaintiffs' Motion to Enlarge Time. Mr. Sklar is correct that Defendants' counsel repeatedly asked for a more specific description of the jurisdictional discovery Plaintiffs seek to take in this case. However, Mr. Sklar's statement that he "provided Defense Counsel with a detailed description of the limited discovery" Plaintiffs are requesting is incorrect. (Sklar Decl. ¶ 7.) During the telephone conference on September 10, Mr. Sklar provided Defendants' counsel only high-level generalities concerning the broad topics of discovery Plaintiffs were seeking. During this call, I requested that Plaintiffs provide a copy of their written discovery proposal before filing their motion with the Court to allow Defendants to consider Plaintiffs' specific discovery requests and meaningfully respond. Plaintiffs never did so before filing these Motions on September 14. 5. During the telephone conferences on September 7 and 10, I also requested that

Plaintiffs provide specific citations to case law or other authority that Plaintiffs contended supported their entitlement to discovery into the claims in Yahoo!'s Motion to Dismiss. In response, Mr. Sklar provided two case citations taken from the annotated version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which nowhere appear in Plaintiffs' Discovery Motion, and never provided Defendants with citations to any of the cases actually cited in Plaintiffs' Discovery Motion before it was filed on September 14. 6. I drafted the email from which Mr. Sklar selectively quotes in paragraph 11 of his

Declaration. I told Mr. Sklar that this email was being sent in an effort to avoid confusion and to clearly outline our position on his proposed motions. I asked that he attach the email to his motion to inform the Court of Defendants' positions, but Mr. Sklar declined to place the entire email before the Court. A true and correct copy of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit C and
C07-02151 CW DECL. OF M. KLINE

-2-

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 3 of 126

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

reproduced below. Morton, Following up on our various conversations, you have informed us in general terms about motions you intend to file concerning the three motions we filed on August 27. We thought it would be useful to send you a short summary of our response to your assertions: 1) You have told us you will file a motion to "hold in abeyance" Yahoo, Inc.!'s Motion to Dismiss and SLAPP Motion, in order to take limited discovery related to these motions. We will oppose this motion for at least the following reasons: First, neither motion turns on disputed facts; both accept as true the facts alleged in the second amended complaint. There is no need for discovery to oppose these motions. Despite our invitation, you have not provided us with case authority demonstrating your right to indefinitely postpone the resolution of our motions in order to obtain discovery. Second, the federal rules permit the filing of motions to dismiss at the threshold of a case in order to test plaintiffs' legal claims and theories before costly litigation ensues. As we have explained in our motions, we think your complaint fails to state a cognizable legal claim, much less one that is justiciable. We seek a ruling from the court on these arguments. Third, to the extent you believe you need discovery on certain factual issues in order to oppose all or parts of our motion, you have refused to identify the specific discovery you need or the issues in our motion to which such discovery relates. Fourth, the motion to initiate discovery is unnecessary. The Court has not stayed discovery in the case; nor have you initiated any discovery; nor have we indicated we will take the position there should be no discovery. Fifth, your perceived need for certain limited--though unspecified--discovery is not cause to file no response at all to our motions. Certainly, there are many arguments and issues in our motions to which you can respond without any professed need for discovery. You should oppose our motions and specifically identify those arguments to which you believe you cannot respond absent discovery. Once you've made your arguments and explained where a factual disputes remain, we and the Court can then evaluate your position, and we can either agree to your request, or failing that, litigate the issue. Sixth, as to YHKL's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, you have not identified the discovery you need to oppose the motion. If and when you do, we will be in a position to evaluate our response. As of now, you've given us no specifics. 2) You have told us you will file a motion seeking a three-week continuance of the September 26 deadline for opposing defendants' three pending motions. Because, as you have explained, you seek this extension in order to file and accelerate your first motion--which seeks to indefinitely postpone your response to defendants' motions--we anticipate opposing this motion. This, of course, is not a complete statement of our views on these issues--just our reactions based on the conversations we've had. But we wanted you to have our basic position before you filed your motions.
C07-02151 CW DECL. OF M. KLINE

-3-

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 4 of 126

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

Thanks, Matt 7. A true and correct copy of Defendants' Motion for an Early Case Management

Conference and Order, filed June 21, 2007, is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 8. A true and correct copy of the parties' Joint Stipulation Re: Withdrawal of the

Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, Re: Filing of Second Amended Complaint, and Re: Extending Time Deadlines Accordingly, filed July 19, 2007, is attached hereto as Exhibit E. This Stipulation was jointly negotiated and agreed to by Plaintiffs' counsel. 9. I participated in several telephone conversations with Mr. Sklar regarding

scheduling issues prior to the filing of the July 19 Stipulation. During these and prior calls, Mr. Sklar expressed a desire to avoid delays in the case, arguing that delay would prejudice Plaintiffs due to their current incarceration in Chinese prisons. Defendants requested that more time be built into the schedule than is reflected in the July 19 Stipulation, but Plaintiffs refused, and the parties ultimately agreed to the current briefing schedule as described in the July 19 Stipulation. 10. A true and correct copy of the Declaration of Morton Sklar in Support of

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for an Early Case Management Conference and Order is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 11. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for an

Early Case Management Conference and Order is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California on this 19th day of September 2007. _____/s/_Matthew T. Kline__________ Matthew T. Kline

C07-02151 CW DECL. OF M. KLINE

-4-

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 5 of 126

EXHIBIT A

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 6 of 126

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

DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (S.B. #97802) [e-mail] MATTHEW T. KLINE (S.B. #211640) [e-mail] O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant YAHOO!, INC and Specially Appearing Defendant YAHOO! HONG KONG, LTD. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION WANG XIAONING, YU LING, SHI TAO, and ADDITIONAL PRESENTLY UNNAMED AND TO BE IDENTIFIED INDIVIDUALS, Plaintiffs, v. YAHOO! INC., a Delaware Corporation, YAHOO! HONG KONG, LTD., a Foreign Subsidiary of Yahoo!, AND OTHER PRESENTLY UNNAMED AND TO BE IDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES OF SAID CORPORATIONS, Defendants. TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT ON November 1, 2007, at 2 p.m., defendant Yahoo!, Inc. ("Yahoo!") will and hereby does move to dismiss, with prejudice, plaintiffs' second amended complaint ("complaint"), which was filed July 30, 2007. Yahoo! brings this motion pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (6), and (7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion, the following memorandum of points and authorities, the pleadings on file in this matter, the reply memorandum Yahoo! intends to file, and any further argument the Court might allow. Case No. C07-02151 CW CORRECTED VERSION: DEFENDANT YAHOO!, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; PROPOSED ORDER Date: November 1, 2007 Time: 2 p.m. Location: Courtroom 2 Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

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

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 7 of 126

2 3 4 5 b 7 8 9 IO ll l2 I3 14 15

Without waiving i ts objeetinn to the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this case, specially appearing defendant Yahoo! Hong Kong, Ltd. ("YHKL") joins this motion. Dated: August 30, 2007 DANIEL M. PETROGELLI MATTHEW T. KLINE O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP

By: Daniel M. Petrneelli Attorneys for Defendant Yahoo! Inc az^d for specially appearing defendant Yahnn! Hong Knng, Ltd.

l7 I8

l9
20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27

28
007-012 1 5 1 C W YAHOO'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COM1'L.

2

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 8 of 126

TABLE OF CONTENTS 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 B. C. 4. B. C. IV. 2. I. II. III. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Summary Of Plaintiffs' Allegations........................................................................................ 2 Plaintiffs Claims Are Not Justiciable................................................................................... 4

A. This Case Should Be Dismissed Under The Act Of State Doctrine. ................................... 5 1. This Case Directly Challenges Sovereign Acts Of The PRC. ......................................... 5 a. Judging PRC Speech Laws. ............................................................................................ 5 b. Judging The PRC's Treatment Of Plaintiffs. .................................................................. 7 c. Judging The PRC's Ability To Gather Evidence. ........................................................... 7 The Sabbatino Factors All Favor Dismissal. ................................................................... 8 This Case Should Be Dismissed Under Principles Of International Comity..................... 12 This Case Should Be Dismissed Under The Political Question Doctrine. ........................ 14 Plaintiffs Have Failed To State A Cognizable Claim. ....................................................... 15

A. Plaintiffs Have Failed To State A Claim Under The ATS................................................. 15 1. 2. 3. Plaintiffs' Allegations Do Not Meet Sosa's "High Bar." .............................................. 15 The ATS Does Not Apply Extraterritorially.................................................................. 16 The Norms Plaintiffs Invoke Are Not Actionable Under The ATS............................... 16 a. Preemption. ................................................................................................................... 16 b. Free Speech. .................................................................................................................. 17 c. Forced Labor ................................................................................................................. 18 Defendants Cannot Be Held Liable On Plaintiffs' ATS Theories. ................................ 19 a. State Action. .................................................................................................................. 20 b. Aiding and Abetting...................................................................................................... 20 Plaintiffs Have Failed to State a Claim Under The TVPA. ............................................... 23 Plaintiffs Have Failed To State A Claim Under ECPA. .................................................... 24

D. Plaintiffs Have Failed to State a Claim Under California Law.......................................... 27 1. 2. The Foreign Affairs Doctrine Preempts Plaintiffs' California Claims. ......................... 27 Plaintiffs Cannot Establish Their Intentional Tort Claims............................................. 28 a. Aiding-and-Abetting Liability....................................................................................... 28
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL

-i-

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 9 of 126

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 V. E. 1. 2. 3. 3. 4.

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) b. Direct Liability. ............................................................................................................. 29 Plaintiffs Do Not State a Claim for Negligence............................................................. 29 Plaintiffs Do Not State a Claim For Unfair Competition............................................... 31 Defendants' Communications With The PRC Are Protected From Liability. .................. 32 The Communications Are Protected Under Federal Law. ............................................. 32 Plaintiffs' Claims Are Barred By California's Statutory Privilege................................ 35 Plaintiffs' International Law Claims Are Similarly Barred. .......................................... 36

Plaintiffs Failed To Join An Indispensible Party................................................................... 37 A. The PRC Is A Necessary Party. ......................................................................................... 37 B. C. The PRC Cannot Be Joined. .............................................................................................. 38 The PRC Is Indispensable. ................................................................................................. 38 Plaintiffs' Counsel May Lack Authority To Bring This Suit............................................. 39 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 40

VI. VII.

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

- ii -

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 10 of 126

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

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 2002 WL 31082956 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2002)..................................20 Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2005) ............... 17, 24 American Ins. Ass'n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003)............................................... 14, 27, 28 Ameritech Corp. v. McCann, 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 (1989) ............................. 25 Arndt v. UBS AG, 342 F. Supp. 2d 132 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ........................................................... 24 Artiglio v. Corning Inc., 18 Cal. 4th 604 (Cal. 1998) ................................................................. 30 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)............................................................................................ 14 Baker v. Superior Ct., 129 Cal. App. 3d 710 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) ............................................ 31 Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964)..............................................passim Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) ......................................................... 2, 15, 18 Berlin Democratic Club v. Rumsfeld, 410 F. Supp. 144 (D.C. D.C. 1976) ................................ 25 Beroiz v. Wahl, 84 Cal. App. 4th 485 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)........................................................ 36 Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co., 239 F.3d 440 (2d Cir. 2000) ................................................................ 12 Bohach v. City of Reno, 932 F. Supp. 1232 (D. Nev. 1996) ....................................................... 27 Bonneville Power Admin. v. FERC, 422 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 2005)............................................. 24 Borg v. Boas, 231 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1956)................................................................................ 33 Boulware v. State of Nev. Dept. of Human Res., 960 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1992).......................... 35 Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1994)............................................................................ 3 Brown v. Edwards, 721 F.2d 1442 (5th Cir. 1984) ..................................................................... 33 Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios, 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 Group, Inc., 2006 WL 2987634 (Cal. Superior Ct., Oct. 13, 2006) .................................................................................................. 32 Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994) ................................................................................................................. 21, 22, 24 Christensen v. Superior Ct., 54 Cal. 3d 868 (Cal. 1991) ............................................................ 29 Cohen v. McIntyre, 16 Cal. App. 4th 650 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) ................................................. 31 Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).............................................................................................................. 32 Conroy v. Regents of Univ. of Calif., 151 Cal. App. 4th 132 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).............................................................................................................. 29 Consol. Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 207 U.S. 541 (1908)............................................................. 7
C07-02151 CW PROPOSED ORDER RE: YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC AM COMPL

- iii -

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 11 of 126

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) 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 Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 403 F. Supp. 2d 1019 (W.D. Wa. 2005)...................................passim Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) ................................................... 14 Daro v. Superior Court, 151 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (2007) ............................................................ 32 Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal. 3d 197 (Cal. 1982) .................................................... 29 Davis v. United States, 192 F.3d 951 (10th Cir. 1999) ............................................................... 37 Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2002)........................................................................................................... 37, 38, 39 Dayton Coal & Iron Co. v. Barton, 183 U.S. 23 (1901)...............................................................7 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)..............................................................passim Doe v. Saravia, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (E.D. Cal. 2004)....................................................... 17, 24 Dorn v. Mendelzon, 196 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) ........................................................................................................... 39 E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores, S.A., Case No. CV F 05-0101, 2006 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 47206 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2006).................................................................... 36 Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961) .............................................................................................................. 35 EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (1991) ................................................................. 16 EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co., 400 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2005) .......................................... 38 Enahoro v. Abubakar, 408 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2005) .................................................................. 17 Estate of Rabinowitz, 114 Cal. App. 4th 635 (2003) .................................................................. 39 Estate of Stephens, 28 Cal. 4th 665 (Cal. 2002).......................................................................... 29 Evers v. Custer County, 745 F.2d 1196 (9th Cir. 1984) ............................................................. 35 Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 701 (Cal. 1994) .................................................................... 29 Fiol v. Doellstedt, 50 Cal. App. 4th 1318 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) ................................................. 29 Foltz v. Moore McCormack Lines, Inc., 189 F.2d 537 (2d Cir. 1951) ....................................... 33 Forro Precision, Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machs., 673 F.2d 1045 (9th Cir. 1982) .......................... 35, 36 Freedman v. America Online, Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D. Conn. 2005) ................................ 26 Friedman v. Merck & Co., 107 Cal. App. 4th 454 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).................................... 30 Gerard v. Ross, 204 Cal. App. 3d 968 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) ...................................................... 28 Guinto v. Marcos, 654 F. Supp. 276 (S.D. Cal. 1986)............................................................ 6, 17 Hagberg v. Calif. Fed. Bank FSB, 32 Cal. 4th 350 (Cal. 2004)............................................ 35, 36 Hamid v. Price Waterhouse, 51 F.3d 1411 (9th Cir. 1995) ........................................................ 26 Hamilton v. Martinelli & Associates,110 Cal. App. 4th 1012 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) .................. 31 Herrle v. Estate of Marshall, 45 Cal. App. 4th 1761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) ................................ 30 Holmes v. Eddy, 341 F.2d 477 (4th Cir. 1965) ........................................................................... 33 Howard v. Superior Ct., 2 Cal. App. 4th 745 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)............................................ 28
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL

- iv -

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 12 of 126

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) 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 Ibrahim v. Titan Corp., 391 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2005)........................................................20 Ileto v. Glock, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (C.D. Cal. 2002)............................................................... 30 In re Calpine Corp. Sec. Litig., 288 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2003)...................................... 3 In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, 25 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir. 1994).................................................6 In re Estate of Marcos Human Rights Litig., 978 F.2d 493 (9th Cir. 1992) ............................... 20 In re Quarles, 158 U.S. 532 (1895) ................................................................................ 12, 32, 33 In re Republic of the Phil., 309 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2002) ......................................................... 38 In re Retail Chemists Corp, 66 F. 2d 605 (2d Cir. 1933)............................................................ 40 In re South Afr. Apartheid Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ....................... 20, 21, 24 Interamerican Refining Corp. v. Texaco Maracaibo, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 1291 (D. Del. 1970) ....................................................................................................................... 34 Joo v. Japan, 413 F.3d 45 (D.C. Cir. 2005)................................................................................ 14 Kadic v.Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995)............................................................................ 20 Khulumani et al. v. Barclay Nat'l Bank Ltd., et al., No. 05-2141 (2nd Cir. 2005)..................... 21 Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296 (Cal. 1992) ............................................................................... 30 Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134 (Cal. 2003).............................. 32 Liu v. Republic of China, 892 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1989) ....................................................... 8, 12 McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985) ................................................................................... 33 Meredith v. Ionian Trader, 279 F. 2d 471 (2d Cir. 1960)....................................................... 2, 39 Morales v. Coop. of Am. Physicians, Inc, 180 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 1999) .................................. 35 Moser v. Ratinoff, 105 Cal. App. 4th 1211 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) ............................................... 30 Mujica v. 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)........................36 Oregon Natural Res. Council v. Mohla, 944 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1991) ..................................... 35 Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n., 551 F. Supp. 486 (D. Wash. 1982) ................... 35 Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Services Co., 650 F.2d 408 (2d Cir. 1981)............................35 Pollock v. Williams, 322 U.S. 4 (1944)....................................................................................... 19 Price v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 294 F.3d 82 (D.C. Cir. 2002)............ 18, 24 Pueblo of Santa Rosa v. Fall, 273 U.S. 315 (1927) ................................................................ 2, 39 Quarles, Vogel v. Gruaz, 110 U.S. 311 (1884) ........................................................................... 33 Radiation Sterilizers, Inc. v. U.S., 867 F. Supp. 1465 (E.D. Wash. 1994) ................................. 35 Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) ............................................................................ 24 Ricci v. State Bd. of Law Examiners, 569 F.2d 782 (3d Cir. 1978) ............................................ 37 Rivendell Forest Prods., Ltd. v. Canadian Forest Prods., 810 F. Supp. 1116 (D. Colo. 1993) ..................................................................................................................... 14 Rosenbloom v. Hanour Corp., 66 Cal. App. 4th 1477 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) .............................. 30 Saffro v. Elite Racing, Inc., 98 Cal. App. 4th 173 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)..................................... 30
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL

-v-

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 13 of 126

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) 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 Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993) ................................................................... 25 Sarei v. Rio Tinto, 456 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 20 Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993)............................................................................. 38 Shipping Ltd. v. Flota Mercante Grancocolombiana, S.A., 830 F.2d 449 (2d Cir. 1987) ........................................................................................................................ 15 Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005)...............................................................................25 Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958) ............................................................................... 34, 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 U.S. 692 (2004)...................................................................passim Southern California Housing Rights Center v. Los Feliz Towers Homeowners Assoc., 426 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (C.D. Cal. 2005) .................................................................... 32 Swaaley v. U. S., 376 F.2d 857 (Ct. Cl. 1967) ............................................................................ 33 Tel-Oren v. Lybian Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ........................................... 20 The Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., Case No. 07-0016, (2d Cir. May 15, 2007) ..................................................................................................passim Timberland Lumber Co. v. Bank of America, 549 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1977) .............................. 34 U.S. v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977)......................................................................... 33 Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250 (1897) .............................................................................. 5 United Mine Workers of Am. v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965)............................................. 35 United States v. Angulo-Hurtado, 165 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (N.D. Ga. 2001).................................25 United States v. Brodie, 174 F. Supp. 2d 294 (E.D. Pa. 2001) ................................................... 34 United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708 (2d Cir. 1975) ......................................................... 25, 26 United States v. Denman, 100 F.3d 399 (5th Cir. 1996)............................................................. 26 United States v. Gatlin, 216 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 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. 2006) .............................................................. 26 United States v. Peterson, 812 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1987) ............................................................ 25 United States v. Smith, 5 Wheat. 153 (1820) ........................................................................ 18, 22 United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974) ........................................................... 25 United States v. Wolf, 352 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (W.D. Okla. 2004) ............................................... 39 Video Int'l Prod. v. Warner-Amex Cable Commc'n, 858 F.2d 1075 (5th Cir. 1988) ................. 35 Vieth v. Jubelirer, 514 U.S. 267 (2004) ...................................................................................... 14 Walker v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co., 474 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (E.D. Cal. 2007).............................. 32 Wang v. Yahoo!, Inc., Order Denying Def. Yahoo!'s Mot. for Early Case Mgt. Conf. & Order (filed July 31, 2007).................................................................................... 4, 5 White v. Trans Union LLC, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (C.D. Cal 2006) ........................................... 32 Wilbur v. Locke, 423 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................... 37, 39
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL

- vi -

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 14 of 126

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) 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 Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3293 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ..................... 20 Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001), rev'd on other grounds, 433 F.3 1199 (9th Cir. 2006)............6, 7, 12 Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968) ................................................................................... 27 STATUTES 18 U.S.C. § 2 ............................................................................................................................... 21 18 U.S.C. § 1513 ......................................................................................................................... 25 18 U.S.C. § 2511 ................................................................................................................... 24, 25 18 U.S.C. § 2701 ................................................................................................................... 25, 27 18 U.S.C. § 2702 ............................................................................................................. 25, 26, 27 18 U.S.C. § 2711 ......................................................................................................................... 27 28 U.S.C. § 1350 .................................................................................................................. passim 28 U.S.C. § 1350, note ......................................................................................................... passim 28 U.S.C. § 1604 ......................................................................................................................... 38 28 U.S.C. § 1605 ......................................................................................................................... 38 Cal. Civ. Code §47(b) ................................................................................................................. 27 CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 367....................................................................................................... 39 CAL. PROB. CODE § 4303 ............................................................................................................ 40 CAL. PROB. CODE § 4121 ............................................................................................................ 39 CAL. PROB. CODE § 4122 ............................................................................................................ 39 CAL. PROB. CODE § 4263(a)(1) ................................................................................................... 39 CAL. PROB. CODE § 4459 ............................................................................................................ 39 CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17204 ........................................................................................ 31, 32 OTHER AUTHORITIES 1993 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State (Jan. 31, 1994)............................................... 19 4 W. BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 67 (1769) .............................. 19 Administrative Measures on Internet Bulletin Services (P.R.C.) ............................................... 35 Br. of the U.S. as Amicus Curiae, The Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., Case No. 07-0016, at 5-12 (2d Cir. May 15, 2007 .............................. 16, 20, 22 BUREAU OF ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS, OECD GUIDELINES FOR MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES 5 (2002) ............................................................................... 13 Caroline Uyttendaele & Joseph Dumortier, Free Speech on the Information Superhighway, 16 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 905 (1998) ................................... 6 Civil Procedure Law (P.R.C.) ..................................................................................................... 39 Criminal Law (P.R.C.) ................................................................................................................ 34 Criminal Procedure Law (P.R.C.) ............................................................................................... 34 Curtis A. Bradley et al., Sosa, Customary International Law and the Continuing Relevance of Erie, 120 HARV. L. REV. 870 (2007) ................................................... 20, 21, 22
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL

- vii -

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 15 of 126

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) 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 Daria Vaisman, Turkey's Restriction, Europe's Problem ............................................................ 6 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)............................9 Judgment of Huang Qi, Huang Qi, Prisoner of conscience, Sichuan Province, http://web.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/asa170012004_appealtwo .......................... 6 Letter from Hon. John B. Bellinger III to Hon. Peter D. Keisler re: Li Weixum, et al. v. Bo Xilai, No. 1:04CV00649 (D.D.C.) (July 24, 2006)................................................... 9 Measures for the Administration of Internet E-mail Services (P.R.C.) ...................................... 35 Morton Sklar on Yahoo! human rights lawsuit (Apr. 21, 2007) (webcast) .................................. 6 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 (Mar. 14, 2007), http://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/publications/files/Yahoo_e.pdf ........................................... 3 Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues Concerning Application of PRC Civil Procedure Law 2002 (P.R.C.) ......................................................................... 39 Ratifications Of The Fundamental Human Rights Conventions By Country,"http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/docs/declworld.htm ......................................... 19 Regulations on Telecommunications (P.R.C.)............................................................................ 35 Reporters Without Borders Briefs for July 2007, Spain: Gara and Deia Journalists Now Face Charges of "Insulting King ................................................................................... 6 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS (1977)................................................................................. 33 RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS (1987) ...................................................... passim 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) ....................................................................................................................... 9 Ronald J. Krotoszynski, A Comparative Perspective on the First Amendment, 78 TUL. L. REV. 1549 (2004) .................................................................................................. 6 Scott Shane, Suit Over C.I.A. Program, N.Y. TIMES, May 31, 2007.......................................... 11 Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, The Hatefulness of Protected Speech, 7 WM. & MARY BILL OF RTS. J. 305 (1999) ................................................................................................ 6, 17 S. Rep. No. 99-541 (1986), as reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3555, 3566 ............................. 25 S. Rep. No. 102-249 (1991), 1991 WL 258662 .......................................................................... 24 State Security Law (P.R.C.) ........................................................................................................ 34 Statement of Interest of the United States, Doe v. Qi, Case No. C02 0672 CW (EMC) (filed Jan. 16, 2004) .............................................................................................. 9, 11 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) ................................................................................................................................. 9 U.S. Dep't 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
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL

- viii -

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 16 of 126

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) 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
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL
CC1:769592.6

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 in human rights abuses in China (Apr. 18, 2007) ..................................................................... 10 RULES FED. R. CIV. P. 12 ................................................................................................................. passim FED. R. CIV. P. 17 ........................................................................................................................ 39 FED. R. CIV. P. 19 ........................................................................................................ 2, 37, 38, 39

- ix -

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 17 of 126

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 fails 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 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 18 of 126

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. 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 ("compl.", 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 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 19 of 126

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 claims.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.
C07-02151 CW YAHOO!'S MOT. TO DISMISS SEC. AM. COMPL.
2

-3-

Case 4:07-cv-02151-CW

Document 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 20 of 126

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. ¶¶ 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 in Appendix A, 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 Appx. A, 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. See Appx. A, Ex. C 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 Appx. A, 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 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 21 of 126

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 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 22 of 126

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 affords 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 98

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 23 of 126

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. ¶ 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,