COMPETITIVE NATIONAL \IICI-IAEL Defendants—Appellants. RAND brief
should
MEMORANDUM
UNOPPOSED
THE
in
not V.
Pursuant SIMBERG,
response
PRESS
be
E.
REVIEW.
dismissed,
MA\.
IN
to
ENTERPRISE
to
Plaintiff—Appellee,
AND
MOTION
THE
D.C.
the
AS
Ph.D..
court’s
18
INC.:
DISTRICT
App.
All
AMICI
OThER
parties
OF
\IARK
R.
Oct.
INSTITUTE:
THE
CURL4E
29.
have
IX, MEDIA
OF
the
STEYN:
REPORTERS
2013,
COLUMBIA
above-named
consented
IN
The Gregg
Ariinizton. Respectfully
1101
Felephone:
ORG
order
RESPONSE
Counsel
fbr
R.eporters
Wilson
Freedom
P.
NIZATIONS
to
to
LeIie
the
show COMMITTEE
VA amici
COURT (703)
for
submitted,
Blvd.,
filing
G.ommittee
22209
:In2!cus
TO
of
(D.C.
cause
Nos,
13-cv-1044
move X07
the
of
ORDER Suite
OF
—2102
13-cv-1043,
Bar
Press
this
why
Curiae FOR
for
APPEALS
ii
#
brief
leave
FOR
this
426092)
(consolidated)
LEAVE
TO
interlocutory
FREEDOM
to
SHOW
file
[0
the
CAUSE
FILE
attached
appeal
OF .1 electronic
ANDREW and (202) BR agrossman(a. MARK DAVID Washington Washington, BAKERHOSTETLER Lotnpentnc
I
050
Itorneys
Rand
CE
Connecticut
861-1770
I
I.
13.
hereh
BROWN
br
BA Sun
NI.
RIVKIN,
Enterprise Square.
bakerlaw.
D.C.
Appellants
[LEN
berg
GROSSMAN
upon:
certify
Avenue,
20036
Suite
JR.
corn
that
LLP
Jnstitute
1100
N.W.
on
No.
CER
13.
fIFICA
2013.
Gregg The
&rlington, 1101
I
FE
a
(ounsel
for cops cphone
Reporters
jbwi11iamsa. OF
Review, JAMES
Washington, JOHN scoffintsteptoe,com COZEN CATHERINE (202) SHANNEN Washington. STEP
1627
Wilson 1330 tHOMAS
Ittorneyc
Ittorneys
Freedom
P.
of
SER
Leslie
V& Connecticut
I
42Q-6255
the FOE
(703)
tor
B. Street,
Bhd
Inc.,
MOORHEAD
O’CONNOR
Committee
for for
22209
WILLIAMS foregoing
ICE
othe I
CON
&
‘nk
07
W.
cozen.com
D.C. and D.C.
Appellants Appellee
JOHNSON
NW,
ROSATO
Suite
us
COFFEN
FOIS
Press
Mark (
A
10’
20006
20036
Suite !ir1ct
motion
IluO
e.,
P.C.
.lfichael
Stevn
NW.
National
REILLY
1100
LLP
vas
E.
ser\ed
Mann
by Nos, 13cv- 1043, 13-cv- 1044 (consolidated)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
Michael E. Mann, PhD.,
Plaintiff—Appellee, v
National Review, Inc.; Mark Steyn; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Rand Simberg,
Defendants—Appellants.
On Appeal from the Superior Court for the District of Columbia
BRIEF AMIU CURIAE OF THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND 19 OTHER MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS, SUPPORTING A FINDING OF JURISDICTION
Gregg P. Leslie The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 1101 Wilson Blvd.. Suite 1100 Arlington, VA 22209 Telephone: (703) 807-2100 Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Additional counsel listed in Appendix B TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii
STATEMENT OF INTEREST iv
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT v
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 1
ARGUMENT ,.,..,.
I. The right to avoid litigation of meritless claims against speech on a matter of public interest, as provided by the D.C. anti-SLAPP statute, will be irreparably lost if denial of a motion is not immediately I
A. Three federal circuit courts have found, under the collateral order doctrine, that anti SLAPP statutes fall within the small class of interlocutory orders that are immediately 2
B. At least two states have found that anti-SLAPP statutes create immunity from suit, a right that is irreparably lost if denials of anti-SLAPP motions are not immediately appealable 4
C. Contrary decisions of other courts indicating there is no right to immediately appeal the denial of anti-SLAPP motions are distinguishable from the D.C. anti-SLAPP statute because of the issue of immunity 6
II. The important role appellate courts play in reviewing defamation cases and the frequency with which defamation decisions are overturned justify prompt appellate review 8
CONCLUSION 10
APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTION OF AMICI 11
APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL COUNSEL 16 11
TABIE OF MTIIORITIES
Cases JR. v, F.C, 33 A.3d 403 (D.C. 201 1)...... 7 Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, No. 12 1565, 2013 WL 5410410 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2013).. 2
Bar:elv. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) 2,6
Bolev v. Atlantic .Ionthlv Grp.. \o. 13—89.2013 WL 3185154 (D.D.C. June 25, 2013) 2
Bose Coip. v. Consumei Union. 466 U.S. 485 (1984) 8, 9
Citizens Ass ‘ii of Georgetown v. Zoning C’omm‘nof the District of Columbia. 392 A.2d 1027 (D.C. 1978) 7
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541(1949) 2
DC Comics v. Pac. Pictures Corp.. 706 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2013) 2, 3, 4
Elrodv. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) 4
Englcrt v. MacDone/i. 551 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2009) 6. 7
Fabre v. Walton. 781 N.E.2d 780 (Mass. 2002) 4
Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79(1st Cir. 2010) 2.3.6
Graysonv.AT&TCoip., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011) 7,8 flarte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989) 8
Ifeniy v. Lake Charles Am. Press, L.L.C., 566 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2009) 2, 3, 4
.Ietahohc Research, Inc. v. Ferrell. 693 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2012) 6, 7
Iorsc Bros. . Webster. 772 A.2d 842 (Me. 2001) 4. 5 l’ples Drug Stoc. Inc. i. Di1rkt ot Columbia. 17(1A.2d “5! (DC. 1983) .....,,...... 7
Schc/ling v. Linde/I. 942 A.2d 1226 (Me. 2008) 5
Stuart v. Walker. 6 A.3d 1215 (D.C. 2010) 7
Wendt v, Barnum, 2007 Mass. App. Di 93 (pp. Dix, 2007) ...... 4, 5 Statutes 111
Cal. Civ. Proc. (ode 425.16 (West 1992) (amended 2011). 2 D.C. Code 16-5501 c’t seq. (2011) 1. 5
La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 971 (1999) (amended 2012) 2
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 59H (1994) (amended 1996) 4
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 556 (1999) (amended 2012) 2
S.B. 286 (Nev. 2013) (amending Nev. Rev, Stat. §41.637) 6 Other Authorities
MLRC 2012 Report on Trials and Damages, Media L. Resource Center, Feb. 2012 ...... 9
Report on Bill 18-893, “Anti-SLAPP Act of 2010,” Council of the District of Columbia, Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary (Nov. 18, 2010) 2, 6, 7, 9
Rules
D.C.App.R.25 11
D.C. App. R. 29 i, iv iv
STATEMENT OF INTEREST
Pursuant to DC. App. R. 29, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, through undersigned counsel, respectfully submit this brief as amicus curiae in support of appellants
Mark Steyn et al, and Competitive Enterprise Institute et a!. Pursuant to DC. App. R, 29 (a), this brief is filed with the consent of all parties.
Media organizations have an interest in ensuring anti-SLAPP statutes remain effective tools in protecting free speech. While all citizens who choose to speak out on public affairs benefit from anti-SLAPP statutes, which aim to deter the use of litigation to silence speech, news organizations have an even greater interest in ensuring that these statutes provide meaningful relief. It is news organizations that choose every day to venture into the thick of every public controversy they can find, to make sure citizens are fully informed about their world. This engagement with important issues makes the news media more liable to be drawn in to court, particularly when a controversial figure decides to use litigation as a weapon to counter thorough reporting.
The amicus parties are: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Advance
Publications, Inc., Allbritton Communications Company, American Society of News Editors,
Association of Alternative Newsmedia, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., The E.W, Scripps
Company, First Amendment Coalition, The McClatchy Company, The National Press Club,
NJationalPress Photographers Association, NBCUniversal Media, LLC, News Corp, Newspaper
Association of America, Online News Association, POLITICO LLC, Society of Professional
Journalists, Time Inc., Tribune Company, and The Washington Post, Each is described more fully in Appendix A. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Advance Publications, Inc. has no parent corporation. and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.
Allbritton Communications Company is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of privately held Perpetual Corporation and is the parent company of entities operating ABC- affiliated television stations in the following markets: Washington, D.C.; Harrisburg, Pa.;
Binningham, Ala.: Little Rock, Ark.; Tulsa, Okia.; and Lynchburg, Va.
American Society of News Editors is a private, non-stock corporation that has no parent.
Association of Alternative Newsmedia has no parent corporation and does not issue any stock.
The E.W. Scripps Company is a publicly traded company with no parent company. No individual stockholder owns more than 10% of its stock.
News Corporation, a publicly held company, is the indirect parent corporation of Dow
Jones. No publicly held company owns 10% or more of Dow Jones’ stock.
First Amendment Coalition is a nonprofit organization with no parent company. It issues no stock and does not own any of the party’s or amicus’ stock.
The McClatchy Company is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol MNI. Contrarius Investment Management Limited owns 10% or more of the common stock of The MeClatchy Company.
The National Press Club is a not-for-profit corporation that has no parent company and issues no stock.
National Press Photographers Association is a 501(c)(6) nonprofit organization with no parent company. It issues no stock and does not own any of the party’s or amicus’ stock. interests than the
and
LLC. corporation. Washington held
laws
no
10
company,
publicly Comcast Newspaper
News
Online Time Tribune Society POLITICO
WP
percent
of
of
NBCUniversal
the
Company
No
Post
Corporation
Inc.
News commonwealth
has
of
of
traded
Company
publicly
Corporation
Professional
Company,
its
Association
a
is
LLC
1
shares.
Association
0
a
corporation
LLC
percent
is
held wholly
is
Media,
has
a
(dib/a
a
wholly
and
a
corporation
privately
of Journalists
no
of publicly
or
owned
Virginia.
its
America
is
LLC.
greater
parent
owns
The
owned
consolidated
a
not-for-profit
held
Washington
held
10%
subsidiary
company.
owns
ownership
is
It
is
subsidiary
company.
a
has
a or
corporation.
non-stock
vi
nonprofit,
10%
more
no
subsidiaries
parent
and
Post)
or
interest
of
organization.
of
of
more
corporation
Time
its
no
privately
non-stock
is
Berkshire
company.
stock.
publicly
in
a of
own
wholly-owned Warner The
Time
held
It
Washington 100%
corporation
with
Hathaway,
has
held
Warner
Capitol
Inc.,
no
no
of
company
parent
the
parent
Inc.’s
a
subsidiary
News
organized
Post
publicly
common
Inc.,
company.
stock.
corporation.
owns
Company.
Company,
a
publicly
of
equity
traded
under
more
The (2011), merits. the
they
Defendants
Superior
denials with
of statutes
reviewing which
1. orders have appealable
litigation
initial
made
at
found
The
This
defamation denying
to
The least of interest, denial This
Michael
are
Court
stages
prevent
defamation anti-SLAPP
on
District
to
meant moved
brief
will
right
three
court
blog that
preserve
of
denied
anti-SLAPP
of Mann.
be
as
a takes
to to
claims
federal
posts
to motion interlocutory
has
of litigation
decisions
irreparably
provided
confer
avoid
dismiss
cases the
Columbia
the
no
motions
a
not
about
climate based
motions,
circuits position
very
is
litigation
justify
immunity
vet SUMMARY
motions
unless
not
are
Mann’s
by
the
lost
rights
are
on
issued
enacted
orders immediately
scientist,
and
overturned
on
the prompt
prompting
controversy
speech
if
immediately
the
of
are conveyed
the not
and
two
complaint
D.C.
a
plaintiff
meritless
ARGUMENT
the denying
merits
immediately
immediately
published
OF
that
appellate
about
state sued
anti-SLAPP
anti-SLAPP
this
THE
and
the
appealable.
surrounding
to
high
defendants of
can
appealable.
matters
under
appeal.
right
defendants
claims
anti-SLAPP
the the
ARGUMENT
review.
opinion
demonstrate
courts,
case;
appealable. appealable.
important
not
the
of
statute,
against
statute,
to
D.C.
for
public
rather,
Mann’s
which
determining
under This
be
defamation
motions
exposed
anti-SLAPP
D.C.
a
role
speech
decision
interest it
Furthermore,
have
likelihood
However,
the
will
research
urges
Code
appellate
statute.
be
found
to
must
on
whether
regarding this
from
would
the
irreparably
§
a
methods
statute,
other
of
matter
court
that
costs
be
16-5501
advancing
the
success courts
be
interlocutory
anti-SLAPP immediately jurisdictions
high
to
statements
and
consistent
The
and
of
find
play
et
on
public
delays
lost rate
data.
D.C.
seq.
past
that
the
in
at
if to other
Columbia, Report”)
fact.
guidance 2013 Appeals to
Maine,’ Bt’,ic,ficja/
the (reaffirming 1565. Cir.
conclusive, collateral
‘Me
C
La.
look
decisions
purpose il
the
2010):
WL
states.
Code
2013
Rc
A.
Because
to
The
Louisiana,2
would
U.S.
(“[This
when
other 3185154.
Industrial
order
Committee
Proc
Civ.
WL Stat
First, Batzel
of [(2)]
Henrr
from
Report
Three
that that
District
interpret
the
this of
jurisdictions
5410410,
Proc.
tit
billj
(odL
doctrine
that
Fifth,
the
other are
v.
anti-SLAPP
statutes. and
at
v.
14 issue
Loan
federal
Smith.,
on
follows
nn,
lack
*3
Court
resolve
on
Lake
immediately
California,3
its
and 42
jurisdictions
Bill
556
(D.D.C.
at
has
Public
Chip.,
permits of
own
art.
333 *3
for
Charles
DC
for
Ninth
i
circuit
(1999)
precedent
the
18893. 6
surfaced.
important
971
(D.D.C.
aiiti-SLAPP (\\
guidance.
F.3d
the
statutes
337
(‘omics
Safety
model
June
respectively,
cst
(1999)
Circuits immediate
appealable.
(
District
courts
Am.
U.S.
1018
imended .
“Anti-SLAPP
1Q92)
25,
Sept.
from
.
set
and
See,
questions
v. . fall
particularly
(amended
Press.
541
2013)
(9th
for
Pac.
have
forth
law.”);
relied
of
27.
the
this
amended
e.g.,
within
2012)
(1949),
required
guidance appeal
Cir.
Columbia
2013).
Pictures Judiciary
(“Where
court in
found,
LL.
on
Boiey
separate
Abbas
2003));
a
2012).
Act
the
C..
the
number
when
in 2u
of
on
the
in
under v
finding
of collateral 566
small
Coip..
v. appropriate,
has the
interlocutory 1)
(Nov. right
Atlantic
Godin
predicting
the
from
Foreign
2010,”
issue
of
F.3d
looked
law
of
the
class
706
that
other
18,
the
v.
immediate
order
of
is collateral
164
Council Monthly
Schencks,
Policy
F.3d the
2010).
merits,
to
of
based appeals.
then,
jurisdictions
how
orders
(5th
other
anti-SLAPP
doctrine, interlocutory
1009
Gip.,
the
the
on
at
of appeals
and Grp..
Cir.
order
jurisdictions
629
it
4
Court
“that similar
the (9th
D.C.
is
LLC,
(“Committee
[]
see
2009).
F.3d
No.
appropriate
District
to
Cir.
statutes doctrine. .
will
Court
are
Cohen
.
No.
preserve
laws
that
orders
.“).
79 13—89,
2013)
look
[(I)]
The
(1st
12—
for
are
of
in In of
in
v. effectively
Comics, clearly
statute, unreviewable confer doctrine
embedded
determination, collateral
would met
immunity
“lawmakers 84-85.
at
orders finding criterion,
osts
85.
before
of be The satisfied.
immunity based
The that
The supi’a,
Looking
that
was
fighting order
imperiled
the and
in
unreviewable
Ninth
are First
concluding
wanted
Fifth
interlocutory
the met.
on
on
court
therefore
706
through
doctrine.”
immediately
appeal
Id.
Circuit the anti-S
at
a and
Circuit
Circuit
F.3d
kL
absent
a
mentles found
to
Analyzing language
Maine
protect
not LAPP
its
from The that at
unreviewable
also
on
held
orders that Id.
a
1013
analyzed enactment
merely
right
appealable. Ninth the
court’s
appeal found
final
defamation at
statute
speakers
of
anti-S
that
the
(brackets
1016.
rights
denying of
the
judgnent;
Circuit
third
that a
interlocutory the
decision
each
from LAPP requires
statute
of
on defense
The
created from
the
first
criterion, the
Henry.
appeal
claim”
in
an
criterion
the
noted
court
statutes
first
original).
and
the anti-SLAPP
two
anti—SL therefore, granting
“particular
against
final
by
two
from trial
sup/a.
and
further the
that appeal
criteria
the
the
“provide
of
criteria judgment
legislative
itself
art
final
the
court
PP interlocutory
Maine the liability.
the
566
noted
deserves
solicitude
therefore
statute,
protection of
motion
rather
judgment.
third
collateral
held
of F.3d
the
defendants
that
anti-SLAPP
the
in
history
that
criterion
than collateral
at
respect.”
that
fall
id.
collateral the “[t]he
unreiewahle
within
review,
I
of
the 73—8
order merely
under
Godin, such
underlying
behind
immunity the
the
California
California
1. of
the
order
Id. statute
right
constitutional
the
right doctrine,
the
order
the
Regarding
from
supra,
framework
it,
court
“small
collateral
on
to
doctrine
not
was
doctrine
liability.”
action,” were from
anti-SLAPP
legislature’s
free appeal
629
to
found
ultimately
meant
class”
the
bear
akin
speech
suit F.3d
of
rights
order
were
were
from third DC
that
the
the Id.
to
is to
of at tried.” final which doctrine.
First
constitutes
180. right. immediately
(Mass. irreparably collateral
litigate litigation” immediately defendants
defendant final
(amended
Thc
judgment.
Amendment
“The
judgment.
held
and
\l
B. Morse Maine
The
2002). a
DC
iss
case
order
that
irreparable loss
is that
fully
1996).
must
lost
Massachusetts nuctts
Comfcs. appealable,
similar
appeal
At Bros. from
beyond not and
right
of
free
Id. doctrine.
litigated Both
if
immediately
rights
Wcndt
First
least
immediately
at
Massachusetts4
not
speech
suit,
is
v.
to
anti
706
the 177-78.
injury.”
courts
its
lost
Amendment
government
Webster, “weighs
immediately
two
v.
Morse
even
his a
initial
SL F.3d
denial
Barnum.
high
right protections
if
case
states
\PP
focused the
appeal
“[i]mmunity though
Id.
at
Bros.,
stages. court
appealable. profoundly
that 772
case
of
after 1016.
tatutL
(quoting
have
immunity 2007
freedoms, have
an the
appealable,
A.2d
held is
supra, proceeds their each
should his
the Id.
irreparably
anti-SLAPP
interlocutory
an
likewise
Mass.
found
anti-S that
Elrod
842
Fifth
of is
in Not analyses
e
772
in not be
4
for favor
their
the
to to App.
(Me.
only
[APP that
Circuit
1’. given
which that A.2d
even simply
held
trial,
right
Burns,
statutes
of
lost
the
did on
Div.
motion, 2001):
order
at
anti-SLAPP
at appealability,”
motion minimal
greater
that
to
is noted
\i right Id.
whether
if
the
a 847;
93, avoid 427
right
denials i essentially
or
at
does
denial
high
Fabre
is
Fabre, they
96
id., that
was import Gen U.S. 177.
periods
lost
to
“the
(App. not
court
the
prevail, the
lose but of
denied, of
347.
v.
La
statutes if
Echoing
supra, harassment
explicitly
anti-SLAPP Henry,
right under
the anti-SLAPP the
importance
lEa/ton,
‘
an find their
Div. of
373
n
defendant
time,
third
appellate but and
in
that
781 the
right
2007).
(1976)).
supra,
the
create
31
question
a
then 781
provide
collateral
unquestionably N.E.2d defendants
element
right
and
Ninth
to
of
motions
motions
N.E.2d
566
he
appeal
is In
immunity protecting
burdens court
H
net
forced
appealed
Wendt. Circuit.
at
for
will F.3d
(1’
of
order
to
784.
after
held may that
780 are
are
the be
)4
be
at
of
to
a judge
the
interlocutory
not
immediately
Maine litigating
statute A.2d
defendants
on
court
result —
D.C. The
Maine, expedited his
Furthennore.
inti—Si
a
the
anti-SLAPP
mere
right
or
D.C.
anti-SLAPP
held
dismissed
in 1226
motion high
seeks
Much
Like
her
see
APP
the
speculation
that [a]
anti-S
hearing,
that
from
likelihood (Me. court
Morse
“loss
appeal
order to
claim,”
the
motion
will like
it
and
not
prevent.”
order
LAPP permits
meritless
the
anti-SLAPP
of
found
2008).
statute
be
temporarily the
on immediately
immediately
Bros.,
the
a
and anti-SLAPP
that
lost
the along
mother
substantial
Massachusetts
denial
of
statute
that
the
forcing
confers
Morse
special
supra,
if a
litigation,”
success
The
defendant
it
with
court
anti-SLAPP
of
dLtt..,rrcnt
statutes is
is
switching
after
court
hearing
his
Bros.,
not
crafted
772
a
motion
a right.”
other
appeal
to
on
defendant
right
motion
immediately
it
award
as
A.2d
high
noted
the loses
in
supra, was
to
claims
indicated
Id an
to
to
to
the
California,
as
statutes
li’ig
merits.
at avoid appeal —
dismiss forestall
issued.
court
the
his
burden
moot
that
it
to
848,
772
mon
of
is
costs right
continue
the
appealable. a
by
the
and error.
create
A.2d
of
the
because
certainty.
and
D.C.
Id.
of
litigation.
its
costs
the
Louisiana,
under
of
statute
the
proof D.C.
1
at
provisions
at
shifts
6—04
a
litigation
denial
2007
Code
litigation
96.
848;
right
and First,
the
an
statute
to
was
the
See
Therefore,
harassment Mass,
see
anti-SLAPP
the
See
of
(a
defendant
to
Maine,
Fifth,
burden
D.C.
to an
offering
“designed
also avoid
plaintiff.
is
requires
16-5502
id.
D
a
anti-S
the App.
party (
and
Code Scheiling
Much
and
to
the
“precise in
lanni
of
failed
an
LAPP Div.
the
statute
Massachusetts,
the Ninth
(b).
Id.
who “cost Massachusetts,
meritless
§
to
expedited
like
plaintiff
Lr\
court
at
protect 16-5501
Ultimately,
(d).
v.
to
prevails motion
harm
and Circuits,
the
93-97.
if
Line/eli,
appeal
IeL
he
to -5503
statute
litigation
delay
to
that
hearing
hold
cannot
certain
et
would
gnized
prove on
The
it
942
seq.
the
the
the
(b). the
the
of
is
an
an
in that
lawsuit whether anti-SLPP rather,
the SLAPP Circuits injury continue
Nevada’s. 333 of or response Oregon’s denials
Nev.
anti-S
Nevada
trial
the
F.3d
Rev. —
this
C. The
but
motions. unique
of
the have
itself
the
LAPP
litigation
to
lawmakers
Metabolic
Stat.
1018,
anti-SLAPP
punish brief
exact
Ninth law.
underlying
statute,
Metabolic
fbund.
rather
Contrary
appeal anti-SLAPP
problem
motions
fbcuses
and
4
injury
Just
California Circuit
the
before
1.637).
then.
than
along
Research, did
Oregon’s,
opponent
as
the
Research,
merits
motions
the
with
are
not,
on
decisions the
merely
is distinguished
appealing
denial with
statute
statute
immediately
the
a
court
the
SLAPP
lawmakers
remedy
of
Inc.
the
and
importance
are
court
from Engiert
this
of
the
in
was
of
high
because i.
intimidate
immediately
the
anti-SLAPP
Godin
lawsuits
ease other
Ferrell.
Nevada held. to liability.”
meant
between
courts
denial
appealable
intended the
v.
fall
generally
courts stated,
of
See MacDoneli,
litigation
to
“is
693
them 6
legislature within
of
the
of
guard
Metabolic
California’s
629 appealable.
that
Maine
motions
an
to
F.3d
issue
“lawmakers
indicating
under into
of confer F.3d anti-SLAPP
that
the
against.
itself.
795
of
and
immediately
silence.”
551
goal
this
class
California
Research. at
immunity.
are
(9th
Massachusetts.
immunity,
anti-SLAPP
85.
This
there F.
S.B.
of
year
wanted
distinguishable
of
3d
Cir.
the
As
motion
Committee
“intimidating”
brief
286
amended
1099
is
2012),
litigation supra.
law
the
appealing
no
to
whereas
takes
Nev.
First,
but
protect
statute.
right
(9th
results
finding
693
requiring
not
its
2013) no Report
is
Cir. Fifth,
to
denials
from
F.3d
statute
not
speakers
Nevada’s
Batel,
under position
in
SLAPP
immediately
that
2009),
irreparable
(amending
to
and
at
at
a
the
party
of win
801.
Oregon
appeals
4.
so
supra,
Ninth
suits:
as from
D.C.
anti
The
that
and
and
the
to
to
In appealable,
D.C.
the its
to coip,, fundamental
751, statutory
language
‘cannot
columbia, appeal
authority,
Committee “Committee 15
attempt statute
discern
legislative
judicial
A.3d
anti-S
754
Like
This
15
Lawmakers
to
There
but
prevail
to
language (D.C.
at
of
A.3d
include
the
LAPP
based
hut 392
extrapolate
California task court
Report
238
the later
principles
agrees
history.
is
intent
the
A.2d
over
219,
1983)
statute,
no
is
(quoting
statute.
has
this removed
the
legislative
in
to
at
originally
with need
strong 238
of
1027.
long
several
(‘This
A.)?.
right
7. discern,
lawmakers.
court’s
the
of
the
Peoples
and
(D.C.
here,
The
Even
recognized law,”); Citizens
lawmakers’
1033 v.
contrary to
legislature
it
court
supports
history
different
F.C..
statute
immediately
included
solely
as and
decision
2011)
after
(D.C.
Drug
in
Peoples
D.C.
has
Ass 33
give
indications
past
has
lawmakers
is
(en
the because
the
A.3d
situations.”).
Stores,
1978)). found
and,
intent.
‘n silent
a
lawmakers
much
effect
in
cases,
provision importance purpose
bane)
of
Drug
appeal
Stuart 403, as
Georgetown
it
as
supra,
to
necessary,
D.C. they to,
appropriate
for
in
(“In
to removed
Stores,
405
say,
of
the
the
the whether
intended
this
v.
panting
lawmakers
thought this interpreting
While
of
470 (D.C.
denial legislative
legislature’s Walker,
court
interpreting
Inc.
provision.”
the
A.2d
whether
v.
interlocutory
to
the 2011)
to
of
Zoning a
v.
provision, to
the
look
defendant confer
court
6
a
at
District
clearly
interpret
history
statutes,
special
provision
A.3d
(“When
753,
that
beyond
intent.”);
a
Id.
Comm
must
statute immunity
“the
intended
intent
the
of
1215
orders
motion
ambiguous
the
judicial
interpreting
look
the Golumbia,
report
‘ii
words
might
through
right
Grayson
is
of (D.C.
plain
are
first
Grayson,
from
to
consistent
the
the
tribunals
noted
of
dismiss. immediatel [of
exceed
anti-SLAPP
meaning
at language
2010); the
District
suit
immediate
470
a a v.
the
statute, that statute]
lens
AT&T
supra,
in
A.2d
plain
seek with
their
the
The
see
the
of
of
of
or Research. D.C.
immediate
in
legislative
legislative coherent
conclusion:
denial
II.
the
about greater
rights
established.
commitment Bose Court’s
Grayson,
purpose
anti-SLAPP
Corp.
of
and
speech
The
The frequency At review.
The
import
tear
interpretation,
an
supra.
history
its appeal
supports
history.
clear
the
anti-SLAPP .
important
the
importance of
that
heart,
See
to
on
Consumers
in
statute
an
693
the
intention
and
Hone-flanks words issues
light
with decisions statute
the
anti-SLAPP this
The
free
F.3d
confer
confers
interest absent
of
case which
role
motion
of
[of
of
15
statute
exchange
Union.
is
the
of
at
public
A.3d
by
is
a immunity
searching
distinct appellate the
801:
contradiction,
role
defamation about
in statute]
immunity
Communications
tncrs
is
motion
may
D.C.
466 allowing
at
not
Engiert,
interest
appellate
238. of
getting
ot
U.S.
immediately from
be
lawmakers
is
cannot
ideas,”
appellate
tact courts —
clear Yet from
read
interlocutory
485.
avoidance —
decisions
supra.
the
may an
courts
is
this
8
in
litigation,
together
action
Uonnaughton,
prevail play
505
not
Oregon
v.
inhibit
D.C.
court
to review
55
appealable.
C’onnaughion,
often
(1984).
frustrated.
permit
in
1
are
of before
‘s
F.3d
over
need
appeals.
with
thc
rev
legislative
litigation
and
and
overturned
play
in
iewing
immediate
expression
at
Because
an
strong
not
defamation
that
the
evada
supra,
in
1105—06. Such
appellate
go
recoizing
legislative 491 right
over
history.
defamation
so
contrary
of
appellate
491
justify
US,
appeals far
statutes,
ot
is
Jo]ur
non-meritorious
as
court
protected cases
irreparably
as
U.S.
the
657.
As
to
history
indications
prompt
First
profound
promptly,
review
leads
intent
this
seek
at
see
has
cases
685-86
686.
Amendment
ideas, court
‘contrary’
Metabolic to
to
long
lost
to
appellate
has
and
a
national
form
and
(1989): ensure
so
claims in
single
noted
if
even been Bose
that
the
the
the
the
a independently Corp.,
Bose
defamation won modify
that Media
issues
nearly became MLRC
a appellate
lengthy
waste
were
58.7 (Joip.,
L. convincing The
of Constitution, not This sufficient supra, 70
The
nearly
2012
and
too
of
appealed, Resource
review
public
percent percent
merely question
decisions
supra,
D.C.
the
burdensome,
costly
heightened
review
Report
466 70
court’s
to
anti-SLAPP interest of
percent
of
clarity of
466
litigation
Center. cross
or
denials U.S.
a
must
whether defamation
trial
their
overturned
67.4
on
question
U.S.
limited
the
appellate
required
could
court at
acting
of
7}ials
independently
cases
percent, Feb.
of
at
that constitutional
those 505,
the
statute
anti-SLAPP 511.
findings
quickly
time 2012,
for decisions
as
ultimately at
and
or
evidence
to
the
decisions.
review
were
a trial,
modified.
was strip
the
and punishment
at
Damages.
Supreme
of
have
36
reversed
enacted but
decide
trier the
resources
that threshold
defamation,
motions.
in
leads
has
tbl.1,
defendants utterance
meritless
the
See
9
defendants
of
Between
had
whether to
so Court
74 supra,
or
in record
MLRC
fact.
an
that
to .
tbl.12A modified).
itself
It
a
appeals
of Bose is
allow
claims
significant
defendants has
who Judges,
it in
not
First
1980 2012 the
appeal
is Committee
a
Cotp.supra.
(reporting
only held
a
evidence defamation appealed
process
Amendment
imperative
dismissed
and
Report
defamation
are
as
burdensome
that
in
impact
2011.
overturned
expositors
cases
it
that
on
Report were
in
appellate
is
before
case 466
defamation Trials
to not
the
protection
145
claim involving on
able
permit
likely U.S.
on record
at is
out
the
or
litigation
and
of
of 4.
the judges
to
to
reversed,
at
of215
number
to
the the
linger reverse Given
Damages, parties immediate
505.
speech
is
is
plaintiffs
survive.
must
cases
costs
in
that
see
but
on of or
a court
motions.
houId
For
the
accept
reasons
jurisdiction
gIen
aboe,
to
as
hear
(ONCU
eI1
an
Respectfully Gregg The
Telephone: Arlington,
as 1101
appeal
Counsel those for
Reporters
Vilson SION
Freedom
P.
gicn
sIie of
VA
(703)
for
the
submitted.
Blvd.,
Committee
22209
Amicus
in
of
denial
807-2100
the
the
Suite
response
Press
Curiae
of
1100
appellants’
of
the
appellant,
anti-S
L\PP
the with 40
systems mingham, affiliated broadcast
site
tion
bership its
priorities Society papers.
and
to reach
130
cities
name
the
WJLA.com.
that
nationwide
Washington
alternative
of
mainstream
Advance
Alibritton
With
Association
to
serving
of
throughout
includes
in
over television
on
station
Ala.:
editors
Newspaper
April
improving
some
25
Little over
circulation,
Publications,
An
WJLA-TV,
City
million
2009
Communications
directing
of
500 press.
stations
the
of
afliliated
online
2.3
Rock,
Paper.
Editors, Alternative
to
members.
United
freedom
APPENDIX
million
readers.
AAN
American
editors
news
in
in newspapers
Ark.:
AAN
the
Inc., company
the
North
ASNE
States.
members
subscribers. of
24-hour
providers
American
following
Tulsa.
of
Newsmedia
directly
newspapers
Company
information.
Society
America,
daily
A:
is
It
operates
in
also
active
have OkIa.;
DESCRIPTION local
over
newspapers
and
and
of Society
markets:
owns
is
a
News
news including
11
(“AAN”)
in
and
through
academic
the and
20
total
diversity.
the
a
many
cities
number parent
their
of
Lynchburg.
ABC
service,
weekly
Editors
Washington,
News
throughout
its
websites
weekly is
and
Internet
leaders.
affiliate
company
readership
subsidiaries,
a
OF
of
not-for-profit NewsChannel
circulation
and
Editors weekly
areas
AMICI
Va.
papers
approved
sites
Founded provide
in
the
D.C.;
of of
In
business
(‘ASNE”) Charleston.
and
Americas.
and
entities
interest
Washington,
publishes
like
of
Harrisburg,
the
an
has trade
seven
broadening
in
8
The
editorial
credibility
and
1922
journals
operating
interests
to
is
association
Village
ASNE S.C. million
top
the
iS
an
as
it
Pa.;
magazines
editors
organiza
news
American alternative
operates
in
its
in
of
changed
Voice
ABC-
and
over
Bir
mem
cable
news
web-
for
with
a publisher
publications.
Dow 2.000
Compliance, television
tion.
ABC
home and
fending levels, parency resist
crets)
nity in
Founded
the
community
The nespapers
Jones
affiliates,
journalists
of excessive
and
tnited
Dow
more The
First
The
The
free
and
the
of
company’s
in
stations.
censorship
also
F,W.
The
Jones McClatchy National
Scripps
Amendment
1908
speech,
an accountable
and Dow
States
three
informed provides
newspapers
government
Wall
in
and
Dow
Scripps
Jones
& the
newspapers,
more
with Howard
free
portfolio
Company.
NBC
niche
Press
of
Street
Club
Jones
Company.
maintains all
information than
press
to
Company
electorate 30 Coalition
affiliates,
publications.
Club
kinds.
has
the
in
Journal,
daily
secrecy VentureSource.
News
fifty
of
and
13
people.
3,100
local
Inc.,
is
locally
markets;
newspapers
through one
countries
the open
is Service.
is
are
(while one
Barron’s, a
news
services,
members a
a
global
world’s
of
The nonprofit essential
diverse,
focused
government
independent
the
and
its and
recognizing
Coalition’s
publishing
Dow
world’s
provider
affiliates,
and
including
MarketWatch.
leading
information
the
rupresenting
131-year-old
media to
public
Jones
related
Washington-based
a
self-governing
rights
largest
and
of
professional
properties
mission
news
is the
interest
is
Dow
news
websiles five
the
a
in
websites
need
most
News
newsgathering
in
media
order Dow
third-largest
Jones
Spanish-language
and
assumes
organization
several
to
major
includes:
Corporation
as business
Jones
protect
organization
to
democracy.
enterprise Factiva,
and
well
Scripps
make
different
news
that licensing
Newswires,
newspaper
as
legitimate
19
operations,
government, information,
Dow
dedicated
government
numerous
organizations
Media
TV
with
company.
To
for
stations);
languages.
Jones
and
stations
that
interests
journalists.
Center,
state
publisher and
syndica
to
with
commu end,
Risk
is at
trans
de
other
daily
se
(ten
the
all
The
we
in
& ‘3
Club defends a free press worldwide. Each year. the Club holds over 2.0(X)events, including news conferences, luncheons and panels, and more than 250.00() guests come through its doors.
The National Press Photographers Association (“NPPA”) is a 501(c)(6) non-profit organ ization dedicated to the advancement of visual journalism in its creation, editing and distribution.
NPPA’s approximately 7,000 members include television and still photographers. editors, stu dents and representatives of businesses that serve the visual journalism industry. Since its found ing in 1946. the NPPA has vigorously promoted the constitutional rights ofjournalists as well as freedom of the press in all its forms, especially as it relates to visual journalism. The submission of this brief was duly authorized by Mickey H. Osterreicher, its General Counsel.
NBCUniversal Media, LLC is one of the world’s leading media and entertainment com panies in the development, production and marketing of news, entertaimnent and information to a global audience. Among other businesses, NBCUniversal Media, LLC owns and operates the
NBC television network, the Spanish-language television network Telernundo. NBC News. sev eral news and entertainment networks, including MSNBC and CNBC, and a television-stations group consisting of owned-and-operated television stations that produce substantial amounts of local news, sports and public affairs programming. NBC News produces the “Today” show,
“NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams,” “Dateline NBC” and “Meet the Press.”
News Corp is a global, diversified media and information services company focused on creating and distributing authoritative and engaging content to consumers throughout the world.
The company comprises leading businesses across a range of media. including: news and infor mation services, digital real estate services, hook publishing. digital education, and sports pro gramming and pay-TV distribution. 14
cnspaper :\ssociation of America (“AA”) is a nonprofit organization representing the interests of more than 2.flt)Onewspapers in the Lnited States and Canada. NAA members ac count for nearly 90° o of the daily newspaper circulation in the United States and a wide range of non-daily newspapers. The Association focuses on the major issues that affect today’s newspaper industry, including protecting the ability of the media to provide the public with news and infor mation on matters of public concern.
Online News Association (ONA”) is the world’s largest association of online journalists.
ONA’s mission is to inspire innovation and excellence among journalists to better serve the pub lic. ONA’s more than 2,000 members include news writers, producers. designers, editors, blog gers. technologists. photographers. academics, students and others who produce news for the In ternet or other digital delivery systems. ONA hosts the annual Online News Association confer ence and administers the Online Journalism Awards. ONA is dedicated to advancing the interests of digital journalists and the public generally by encouraging editorial integrity and independ ence. journalistic excellence and freedom of expression and access.
POLITICO LLC is a nonpartisan. Washington-based political journalism organization that produces a series of websites. video programming and a newspaper covering politics and public policy.
Society of Professional Journalists (“SPJ”) is dedicated to improving and protecting jour
nalism. It is the nation’s largest and most broad-based journalism organization. dedicated to en
couraging the free practice of journalism and stimulating high standards of ethical behavior.
Founded in 1909 as Sigma Delta Chi, SPJ promotes the free fio of information ‘ ital to a well-
informed citizenry, works to inspire and educate the next generation of journalists and protects
Firt Amendment guarantees of freedom of 5peLl1 and press. 15
Time Inc. is the largest magazine publisher in the United States. It publishes over 90 ti tles, including Time, Fortune, Sports Illustrated, People, Entertainment Weekly, InStyle and Real
Simple. Time Inc. publications reach over 100 million adults, and its websites, which attract more visitors each month than any other publisher, serve close to two billion page views each month.
Tribune Company operates broadcasting. publishing and interactive businesses, engaging in the coverage and dissemination of news and entertainment programming. On the broadcasting side, it owns 23 television stations, a radio station, a 24-hour regional cable news network and
“Superstation” WGN America. On the publishing side, Tribune publishes eight daily newspapers
— Chicago Tibune, Hartford (Conn.) Courant. Los Angeles Times. Orlando Sentinel (Central
Florida), The (Baltimore) Sun. The (Allentown. Pa.) Morning Call, (Hampton Roads. Va.) Daily
Press and Sun-Sentinel (South Florida).
\VP Company LLC (d/b/a The Washington Post) publishes one of the nation’s most prominent daily newspapers, as well as a website, www.washingtonpost.com, that is read by an
average of more than 20 million unique visitors per month. Richard 4 New Sahin,
Counsel
Jerald
Legal Senior
and Alibritton Arlington,
Kevin
Arlington. Fletcher.
Counsel 1000
1300 Kevin Arlington, Fletcher,
Counsel
Mark Jason 1300 Dow New
7th Vice Da\id 1211 The
Deputy Cincinnati. 312
Times
Editors General
Newsmedia
Floor
York.
Walnut
E.W. Wilson
N.
York, N.
Jones and
N. President! Avenue
Bermant
H.
M. P.
Vice
M.
M.
A.
Square.
for
General
17th
for
17th for
Fritz Conti Heald
Jackson
Heald
Goldberg
Strategic Communications
Goldberg
VA
Giles
VA
Bernstein
NY Scripps
VA
Ad\ance
President &
NY
American
Counsel
01-1
Association
St.. Blvd.,
St.,
St.,
of
Company,
22209
22209
22209
&
10036
&
&
23rd
45202
10036
Suite the Counsel
11th
Gould
11th
Hildreth.
Hildreth,
Company
Affairs
Suite
Americas
APPENDIX
Publications.
Floor
Floor
280() Society
Floor
of
LLP
Inc.
2700
Alternative
Company
PLC
PLC
of
Nes
B:
Inc.
ADDITIONAL
16
Peter First 534
The Juan San
Karole 2100
Holland Sacramento, Charles Washington, 800 Suite Counsel
Mickey
Buffalo, Counsel
NBCUniversal Vice 1100 New Beth 30
News New Eugenic
Covington Kurt
1211 Counsel Washington,
1201
COUNSEL:
Rockefeller
phers
Rafael, Fourth
McClatchv
of
1
Amendment
Comejo
Scheer
Q
R. President, York, 7th
M&T
York,
Wimmer
1100
Avenue
Pennsylvania
Corp
Morgan-Prager
America
Street
D.
H.
&
Lobel,
for
NY
for
Gavenchak
Street,
fdr
Association
Tobin
Knight
St.,
Osterreicher
CA
&
Center,
NY
NY
The
National
CA
the
DC
14203
DC
Burling of
Suite
Esq.
Plaza 94901 fvledia,
Company
Media
NW
10112
Newspaper
10036 National
95816
the
20006
Coalition
20004
LLP
3
Ave.,
Americas
B
Press
Fountain
LLP
Law
LLC
Press
NW
Photrnua
Association
Plaza,
Club 1
Jonathan D. Hart Karen H. Flax Dow Lohnes PLLC Assistant General Counsel 1200 New Hampshire Me., NW Publishing & Litigation Washington, DC 2003o fribune Company Counsel for Online News Association 220 F. 42nd St., Suite 400 New York, NY 10017 Jerald N. Fritz Vice President and General Counsel John B. Kennedy POLITICO LLC James A. McLaughlin 1000 Wilson Blvd., Suite 2700 Kalea S. Clark Arlington, VA 22209 The Washington Post 1150 15th Street. N.W. Andrew Lachow Washington, D.C. 20071 Vice President and Deputy General Counsel — Litigation Time Inc. 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 consent, licted I
ANDREW MARK I3RLCE DAVID Attorneys/or BAKERHOSTETLER (202) Washington Washington, agrossman and
competitive
1050
hereh
Rand
Connecticut
below
861-1770
I.
on B. certlf\
BROWN
BAILEN
Si,nherg
RIVKIN. M.
this
Square,
Enterprise
bakerlaw.
in
D.C.
Appellants
GROSSMAN
that
accordance the
Avenue.
20036
13th
a
Suite
JR.
true
corn
LLP
Institute
day
and 1100
NW.
‘ith
of
correct
Noember, CERTIFICA
D.C.
cop\
App.
The
Gregg.
Arlington,
1
lelephone:
1
0
2013.
tbr Counsel
of
1
Reporters R.
FE
Wilson
the
is
Freedom
P.
25
OF
Attorneys THOMAS JAMES
Leslie (202) Washington, SHANNEN Review. STEPTOF Attorneys JOHN scoffinlä.
CATHERINE COZEN
Washington, 1330
jbwiIliarnscozen.corn
1627
foregoing
VA
via
(703)
for
SERVICE
Blvd
Com.mittee
2.. Connecticut electronic
1
429-6255
of
Imicus
B.
Street,
209
57—21
Inc.,
MOORHE\D .
O’CONNOR
the
steptoe.corn
Jd
WILLIAMS
jbr
Suite
CONTOIS v
&
r
W.
as
Press
D.C.
D.C. and
Appellants
JOHNSON Appellee
Curiae
NW,
ROSATO
00
served
COFFEN
mail,
I
1
.fark
Ave..
20036
00 20006
Suite
with
P.C. on
Michael
Stein
N.W.
National
REILLY
1100
LLP
all
all
counsel
parties’
E.
Mann
of
ritten
record