Resolute Forest Products, Inc. et al v. Greenpeace International et al

Filing 299

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 297 Discovery Letter Brief. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2020)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, 9 v. 10 11 Case No. 17-cv-02824-JST (KAW) ORDER REGARDING JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER Re: Dkt. No. 297 GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiffs are corporate entities who harvest wood for the manufacture and sale of paper 14 products. (First Amended Compl. (“FAC”) ¶¶ 24-30, Dkt. No. 185.) Defendants are non-profit 15 environmental advocacy organizations and several of their employees. (FAC ¶¶ 31-33, 36-39.) 16 Following a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs’ surviving claims are for defamation (and the 17 corresponding Unfair Competition Law claim) based on Defendants’ December 2016 and May 18 2017 statements that Plaintiffs were operating in the Montagnes Blanches. (FAC ¶¶ 304-09; see 19 also Dismissal Ord. at 34, Dkt. No. 246.) These statements were made after the Quebec Minister 20 of Forests, Wildlife, and Parks issued a statement explaining that a map featured in a 2010 21 Greenpeace Canada report, to show that Plaintiffs logged in the Montagnes Blanches, was 22 misleading. (FAC ¶ 217; Dismissal Ord. at 5.) 23 Pending before the Court is the parties’ January 9, 2020 joint discovery letter. (Discovery 24 Letter, Dkt. No. 297.) Plaintiffs seek discovery related to the Montagnes Blanches starting from 25 June 1, 2012, “two months prior to [the] earliest known effort by Greenpeace to accuse Resolute 26 of operating in the Montagnes Blanches . . . .” (Id. at 2.) Defendants assert that discovery should 27 start from January 1, 2013, citing to the Court’s prior discovery order. (Id. at 1-2.) 28 In its prior order, the Court explained that when alleging defamation against a public 1 figure, a plaintiff must demonstrate “‘actual malice’; that is, ‘with knowledge of their falsity or 2 with reckless disregard for the truth.’” Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 715 F.3d 254, 265 (9th Cir. 3 2013) (internal quotation omitted). Reckless disregard, in turn, exists where “the defendant . . . 4 made the false publication with a high degree of awareness of probable falsity, or must have 5 entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. 6 Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 667 (1989) (internal quotations omitted). Applying these principles, 7 the Court found that “information about how Greenpeace Defendants defined Montagnes Blanches 8 is directly relevant to actual malice . . . .” (Discovery Ord. at 7, Dkt. No. 269.) Thus: 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 The Court . . . disagrees with Greenpeace Defendants that the discovery should primarily consist “of the materials and information considered and relied upon by the speaker when authoring the allegedly defamatory statements regarding the Montagnes Blanches forest region in 2016 and 2017.” As Plaintiffs argue, the statements regarding the Montagnes Blanches appear to be part of a campaign against [Plaintiffs], going back to December 2012. For example, a 2013 report by Greenpeace Canada accusing Plaintiffs of violating the CBFA -- and later distributed by Defendant Brindis -- contained claims that Plaintiffs were logging in the Montagnes Blanches. Thus, information about the Montagnes Blanches preceding the 2016 and 2017 statements, even as far back as 2013, may be relevant to actual malice, as it goes to Defendants’ motivation and knowledge base when making the challenged statements. (Id. (citations omitted).) In so finding, the Court did not conclude that information prior to 2013 was necessarily not 19 discoverable. Indeed, Plaintiffs point to a December 2012 article published by non-party 20 Greenpeace Canada, which asserted that Plaintiffs built logging roads in the Montagnes Blanches. 21 (Discovery Letter at 1.) The December 2012 article included photographs and video, which the 22 article stated had been taken by Greenpeace employees in August 2012. (Id.) The December 23 2012 article was then disseminated by Defendants in early 2013. (Id. at 2; FAC ¶ 113.) Thus, 24 information related to the December 2012 article, including the photographs and video taken in 25 August 2012, is discoverable because it may lead to relevant information as to Defendants’ 26 definition of the Montagnes Blanches and their knowledge about its borders when they made the 27 actionable 2016 and 2017 statements. 28 Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. First, Defendants argue that such 2 1 information is not discoverable because the presiding judge dismissed claims based on statements 2 made prior to the Quebec Minister’s May 2016 statement. (Discovery Letter at 4.) That, however, 3 does not mean all prior information is irrelevant. This is particularly the case where Defendants 4 have argued that their definition of the Montagnes Blanches may differ from the Quebec 5 government’s. (See Discovery Ord. at 7.) Thus, how Defendants define Montagnes Blanches is 6 discoverable, even if it predates the May 2016 statement. 7 Second, Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendants were engaged in a 8 longstanding “campaign” to accuse Plaintiffs of logging in the Montagnes Blanches. (Discovery 9 Letter at 4.) Plaintiffs, however, are not required to rely on Defendants’ assertions. 10 Third, Defendants contend that the December 2012 article was “of a wholly different United States District Court Northern District of California 11 character” than the actionable 2016 and 2017 statements. (Discovery Letter at 4.) Defendants 12 argue that the December 2012 article concerned logging in a zone prohibited under the Canadian 13 Boreal Forest Agreement (“CBFA”) while the 2016 and 2017 statements concern logging in the 14 Montagnes Blanches Endangered Forest, a region that has been identified since 2010. (Id.) 15 Plaintiffs dispute this characterization, and further point out that the actionable 2016 and 2017 16 statements do not refer to the “Montagnes Blanches Endangered Forest.” (Id. at 3.) This appears 17 to be a factual dispute, and not a basis for withholding discovery. 18 Finally, Defendants generally argue that the presiding judge already dismissed claims 19 based on other statements, such as those related to the CBFA. (Discovery Letter at 5.) While 20 accurate, the discovery at issue concerns Defendants’ knowledge about the Montagnes Blanches. 21 Even if such information was obtained when making non-actionable statements, it still goes to 22 what Defendants knew when they made the actionable statements. 23 Accordingly, Defendants are allowed to seek documents related to the Montagnes 24 Blanches beginning in June 1, 2012. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: January 21, 2020 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 3

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


Why Is My Information Online?