Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Cayabyab et al
Filing
94
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF 81) (svklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2019)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
IGLESIA NI CRISTO,
8
Plaintiff,
10
LUISITO E CAYABYAB, et al.,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 81, 84, 85
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
v.
9
Case No. 18-cv-00561-BLF (SVK)
12
13
Plaintiff Iglesia Ni Cristo moves to compel Defendant H20 Now USA (“Defendant H2O”)
14
and Defendants Luisito E. Cayabyab and Rolando Dizon, Jr. (“Defendants Cayabyab and Dizon”)
15
to respond to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests. ECF 81. The Parties’ dispute arises out
16
of Defendants’ motions to strike portions of Plaintiff’s amended compliant (ECF 53) under
17
California’s Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation statute (Cal. Civ. P. Code § 425.16).
18
ECF 58; ECF 73 (“anti-SLAPP motions”). The Honorable Beth Labson Freeman extended
19
Plaintiff’s deadline to file oppositions to Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions and motions to dismiss
20
to April 22, 2019, to allow this Court time to rule on the instant motion to compel. ECF 82. The
21
hearing date for Defendants’ motions remains May 16, 2019. Id.
Plaintiff specifically seeks responses to special interrogatories and requests for production1
22
23
“to move litigation along in this case and to oppose the pending Anti-SLAPP motions.” ECF 81
24
at 4. Defendant H2O and Defendants Cayabyab and Dizon both filed oppositions to Plaintiff’s
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff also propounded requests for admissions. ECF 81 at 9 n.2. Plaintiff does not seek to
compel responses to those requests and instead asserts that Defendant H2O’s and the Defendants
Cayabyab and Dizon’s failure to respond to those requests means that the Court should deem those
requests admitted. Id. As noted below in Section II(B) the Court finds that Defendants have not
waived their right to object to or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, including
requests for admissions.
1
motion to compel (ECF 84; ECF 85), and the Court held a hearing on March 7, 2019. For the
2
reasons stated at the hearing and set forth below, the Court finds that discovery is not stayed, and
3
Plaintiff is entitled to the discovery of information essential to opposing Defendants’ anti-SLAPP
4
motions.
5
I.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
6
A. The Two Steps of Anti-SLAPP Motion Analysis
7
When evaluating an anti-SLAPP motion, the Court engages in a two-step analysis. First,
8
the Court determines whether the plaintiff challenges “an act in furtherance of protected
9
expression.” Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832, 840 (9th Cir. 2001). If so, the Court
proceeds to the second step, where “the plaintiff must show a ‘reasonable probability’ of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
prevailing in its claims for those claims to survive dismissal.” Id. (citations omitted). The Court
12
will grant an anti-SLAPP motion (1) if “a plaintiff presents an insufficient legal basis for the
13
claims” or (2) “when no evidence of sufficient substantiality exists to support a judgment for the
14
plaintiff.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, an anti-SLAPP motion can
15
challenge either the legal sufficiency or the factual sufficiency of a claim. See Planned
16
Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 890 F.3d 828, 834 (9th Cir. 2018).
17
Whether a defendant’s motion challenges the legal or factual sufficiency of a claim
18
determines the standard of review that the Court applies. For instance, “when an anti-SLAPP
19
motion to strike challenges only the legal sufficiency of a claim, a district court should apply the
20
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard and consider whether a claim is properly
21
stated.” Id. In contrast, “when an anti-SLAPP motion to strike challenges the factual sufficiency
22
of a claim, then the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standard will apply.” Id.
23
B. Permitted Discovery under Ninth Circuit Law
24
Section 425.16(g) provides for an automatic stay of discovery upon the filing of an anti-
25
SLAPP motion. Cal. Civ. P. Code § 425.16(g). However, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that
26
this provision collides with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when a defendant challenges the
27
factual sufficiency of a claim. See Metabolife, 264 F.3d at 846–47. Section 425.16(g)’s discovery
28
stay conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which requires that the Court allow
2
1
discovery “where the nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information that is
2
essential to its opposition.” Id. at 846 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250
3
n.5 (1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In implementing Metabolife’s holding, several
4
courts have adopted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)’s standard that discovery must be
5
essential to the plaintiff’s opposition. Price v. Stossel, 590 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1270 (C.D. Cal.
6
2008); see also Heller v. NBCUniversal, Inc., No. CV-15-09631-MWF-KS, 2016 WL 6583048, at
7
*10 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2016) (holding that “[a]ll discovery must be strictly limited to” the issue
8
raised by the anti-SLAPP motion). Indeed, following Planned Parenthood, the Ninth Circuit
9
affirmed the denial of a request to conduct discovery prior to granting an anti-SLAPP motion
where the plaintiff failed to “provide an affidavit or declaration outlining why he needed
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
additional discovery” or offer “any facts that he hopes to discover that could defeat” an argument
12
in the defendants’ motion. Khai v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 730 F. App’x 408, 410–11 (9th Cir. 2018).
13
Accordingly, a Court must only provide a plaintiff an opportunity to seek discovery regarding
14
“essential” information for her opposition of an anti-SLAPP motion challenging the factual
15
sufficiency of her claim(s).
Lastly, the Ninth Circuit has also recognized that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to
16
17
18
claims asserted under federal law. Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 901 (9th Cir. 2010).
II.
Analysis
19
A. Plaintiff’s Right to Discovery to Oppose Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motions
20
The Parties dispute (1) whether Plaintiff is entitled to discovery in light of § 425.16(g) and
21
22
Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions and (2) the proper scope of such discovery.
Plaintiff contends that there is no discovery stay in the case pursuant to Planned
23
Parenthood. ECF 81 at 5. Defendants counter that at the initial case management conference and
24
hearing on Defendants’ motions to dismiss and anti-SLAPP motions against Plaintiff’s original
25
complaint on July 26, 2018, Judge Freeman indicated that Plaintiff would have to file a motion for
26
leave to take discovery in the event Defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion against the
27
amended complaint. ECF 84 at 2; ECF 85 at 2, 11. Although Judge Freeman did refer to a motion
28
for leave to take discovery (ECF 48 at 33:8–20; 39:19–23), Judge Freeman also noted that there is
3
1
no “discovery stay . . . in federal court for when anti-SLAPP motions are pending.” Id. at 42:1–3.
2
The case management order (ECF 46) also does not reflect a stay of discovery, nor have
3
Defendants moved for either a stay or a protective order. Accordingly, discovery is not stayed in
4
this matter.
5
The Court next turns to whether Plaintiff is entitled to discovery on an expediated timeline
6
for the purpose of responding to Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions. Plaintiff argues that both
7
Defendant H2O and Defendants Cayabyab and Dizon attach declarations to their anti-SLAPP
8
motions and contends that both motions challenge the factual sufficiency of Plaintiff’s claims.
9
ECF 81 at 7–8. As a result, Plaintiff argues that Planned Parenthood mandates that the Court
provide Plaintiff the opportunity to conduct discovery. Id. Both Defendant H2O and Defendants
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Cayabyab and Dizon contend that their anti-SLAPP motions only challenge the legal sufficiency
12
of Plaintiff’s claims, so no discovery is warranted. ECF 84 at 1; ECF 85 at 8.
13
As noted above, whether a plaintiff must submit evidence to support her claims in response
14
to an anti-SLAPP motions is tied to whether that motion challenges the legal sufficiency or factual
15
sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claims. See Planned Parenthood, 890 F.3d at 834. When a plaintiff
16
faces a factual sufficiency challenge, the Court must provide the plaintiff with the “opportunity to
17
discover information that is essential to its opposition.” Metabolife, 264 F.3d at 846 (quoting
18
Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 250 n.5) (internal quotation marks omitted). In that situation, a
19
plaintiff is entitled to discovery regarding “essential” information for her opposition of an anti-
20
SLAPP motion.
21
The issue of whether Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions challenge the legal sufficiency of
22
Plaintiff’s claims, the factual sufficiency of those claims, or both, goes to the disposition of
23
Defendants’ motions and is therefore properly reserved for Judge Freeman. This Court need not
24
determine the nature of Defendants’ challenges. Rather, the issue before this Court is whether the
25
discovery Plaintiff seeks is “essential” to Plaintiff’s opposition of Defendants’ anti-SLAPP
26
motions. Plaintiff’s motion to compel seeks responses to 134 requests for production and 58
27
interrogatories. See ECF 81-2. However, as discussed at length in the March 7, 2019 hearing,
28
Plaintiff fails to identify specific factual challenges to Plaintiff’s claims and the information in
4
1
Defendants’ possession essential to opposing those factual challenges. Absent such a showing,
2
Plaintiff does not have a right to discovery prior to Judge Freeman’s ruling on Defendants’ anti-
3
SLAPP motions. See Khai, 730 F. App’x at 410–11. Accordingly, Plaintiff must identify the
4
specific discovery essential to opposing Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions. To this end, the Court
5
ordered Plaintiff to submit a proposed discovery plan to Defendants and the Court by March 8,
6
2019 at 5:30 p.m., and today the Court has provided additional, interim direction as to that plan.
7
ECF 93.
8
B. Discovery Regarding Issues Beyond Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motions
9
As discussed above, discovery is not stayed, and the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to
claims asserted under federal law. Hilton, 599 F.3d at 901. As a result, Defendants remain
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
obligated to respond to properly served discovery requests regarding Plaintiff’s federal claims.
12
Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ alleged failure to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests
13
precludes Defendants from now asserting objections to those requests. ECF 81 at 8–11.
14
However, the Court finds that in light of the discussions at the hearing before Judge Freeman
15
noted above, Defendants’ refusal to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests without a motion was
16
not entirely unfounded. Accordingly, as discussed with the Parties at the March 7, 2019 hearing,
17
the clock will be reset as to discovery not essential for the anti-SLAPP motions.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Parties meet and confer regarding a schedule for
18
19
addressing the discovery requests that go to issues beyond the information essential to responding
20
to Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions. This schedule should include an agreement as to the
21
deadline for Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests, taking the
22
schedule for the pending motions into account.
23
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:
24
25
Conclusion
•
Plaintiff is to provide the Court and Defendants a discovery plan, identifying any
26
interrogatory requests or requests for production that Plaintiff seeks to respond to
27
Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions, in accordance with ECF 93.
28
•
The Court also finds that there is no discovery stay in this case. Accordingly, after the
5
1
issues regarding discovery for the anti-SLAPP motions are resolved, the Parties are to meet
2
and confer regarding a schedule for addressing the discovery requests that go to issues
3
beyond the information essential to responding to Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions. This
4
schedule should include an agreement as to the deadline for Defendants’ responses to
5
Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests which takes into account the pending motions.
6
•
As noted at the hearing, the Court grants Defendant H2O’s request to reserve its right to
7
seek sanctions in connection with this dispute. The remaining requests for sanctions are
8
DENIED. ECF 81 at 12; ECF 85 at 14.
9
10
SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Dated: March 11, 2019
13
14
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?