Case 3:19-cv-01713-BAS-AHG Document 19 Filed 12/02/19 PageID.103 Page 1 of 26 1 LOUIS R. MILLER (State Bar No. 54141) [email protected] 2 AMNON Z. SIEGEL (State Bar No. 234981) [email protected] 3 COLIN H. ROLFS (State Bar No. 280654) [email protected] 4 JUSTIN P. MCCARTHY (State Bar No. 317169) [email protected] 5 MILLER BARONDESS, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 6 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-4400 7 Facsimile: (310) 552-8400 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff Herring Networks, Inc. 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 HERRING NETWORKS, INC., CASE NO. 3:19-cv-01713-BAS-BGS 15 Plaintiff, Assigned for All Purposes to: Hon. Cynthia Bashant 16 v. PLAINTIFF HERRING 17 RACHEL MADDOW; COMCAST NETWORKS, INC.’S OPPOSITION CORPORATION; NBC UNIVERSAL TO DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL 18 MEDIA, LLC; AND MSNBC CABLE MOTION TO STRIKE LLC, 19 NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS Defendants. REQUESTED BY THE COURT 20 [Filed Concurrently with Declaration of 21 Charles Herring; Declaration of Professor Stefan Th. Gries and 22 Declaration of Amnon Z. Siegel] 23 Action Filed: September 9, 2019 24 Hearing Date: December 16, 2019 Trial Date: None 25 26 27 28 441437.6 Case No. 3:19-cv-01713-BAS-BGS HERRING NETWORKS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE Case 3:19-cv-01713-BAS-AHG Document 19 Filed 12/02/19 PageID.104 Page 2 of 26 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 3 I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 4 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS .....................................................................................................3 5 A. Kristian Rouz ..............................................................................................................4 6 B. Maddow Falsely States That OAN “Really Literally Is Paid Russian Propaganda” ...............................................................................................................4 7 III. LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................5 8 IV. ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................6 9 A. Maddow’s False Statement Is Not Protected Opinion ...............................................6 10 1. Maddow’s Statement Is Provably False .........................................................7 11 (a) The Language of the Statement Shows It Was Not Opinion .............8 12 (b) The Context of the Statement Shows It Was Not Opinion ................9 13 (c) Linguistic Analysis Confirms Maddow’s Statement Was Not 14 Opinion .............................................................................................12 15 2. Maddow’s Statement Also Implied Additional Undisclosed, False Assertions of Fact .........................................................................................14 16 B. Maddow’s Comment Is Not Only Capable Of A Defamatory Meaning, It Is 17 Affirmatively Defamatory ........................................................................................18 18 C. Defendants’ “Substantial Truth” Argument Lacks Merit ........................................19 19 D. At A Minimum, Discovery Should Be Permitted ....................................................21 20 V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................21 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 441437.6 i Case No. 3:19-cv-01713-BAS-BGS HERRING NETWORKS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE Case 3:19-cv-01713-BAS-AHG Document 19 Filed 12/02/19 PageID.105 Page 3 of 26 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page 3 FEDERAL CASES 4 Agard v. Hill, 5 No. CIV 2-10-cv-0323-GEM-JFM (PS), 2010 WL 1444580 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2010) .................................................................................................................................... 15 6 Church of Scientology of Cal. v. Flynn, 7 744 F.2d 694 (9th Cir. 1984) ............................................................................................... 18 8 Cochran v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 58 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ................................................................................. 17 9 Flowers v. Carville, 10 310 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................... 9 11 Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................... 16, 17 12 Knievel v. ESPN, 13 393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................. 19 14 Koch v. Goldway, 17 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................. 11 15 Manufactured Home Cmtys., Inc. v. County of San Diego, 16 544 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 7 17 Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (1991) ...................................................................................................... 19, 20 18 Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 19 497 U.S. 1 (1990) .................................................................................................... 14, 15, 16 20 Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 890 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................. 6 21 Troy Grp., Inc. v. Tilson, 22 364 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (C.D. Cal. 2005) ......................................................................... 18, 19 23 Unelko Corp. v. Rooney, 912 F.2d 1049 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................... 7, 10, 11 24 Unsworth v. Musk, 25 Case No. 2:18-cv-08048-SVW-JC, 2019 WL 4543110 (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2019) .............. 8 26 Woodbridge Structured Funding, LLC v. Sovereign Funding, No. MJG-11-3421, 2012 WL 13006189 (D. Md. June 21, 2012) ....................................... 21 27 Wynn v. Chanos, 28 75 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................ 19 441437.6 ii Case No. 3:19-cv-01713-BAS-BGS HERRING NETWORKS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE Case 3:19-cv-01713-BAS-AHG Document 19 Filed 12/02/19 PageID.106 Page 4 of 26 1 STATE CASES 2 Bently Reserve LP v. Papaliolios, 218 Cal. App. 4th 418 (2013) ........................................................................................ 19, 20 3 Briganti v. Chow, 4 No. B289046, 2019 WL 6242111 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2019) (certified for publication) ............................................................................................................................ 6 5 Campanelli v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 6 44 Cal. App. 4th 572 (1996) ............................................................................................ 7, 20 7 Cheveldave v. Tri Palms Unified Owners Ass’n, 27 Cal. App. 5th 1202 (2018) ................................................................................................ 6 8 Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Mann, 9 150 A.3d 1213 (2016) ......................................................................................... 8, 11, 15, 16 10 Dickinson v. Cosby, 37 Cal. App. 5th 1138 (2019) ....................................................................................... passim 11 Good Gov’t Grp. of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court, 12 22 Cal. 3d 672 (1978) ............................................................................................................ 1 13 HMS Capital, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co., 118 Cal. App. 4th 204 (2004) .......................................................................................... 5, 14 14 Hughes v. Hughes, 15 122 Cal. App. 4th 931 (2004) .............................................................................................. 19 16 Kahn v. Bower, 232 Cal. App. 3d 1599 (1991) ............................................................................................... 8 17 O’Connor v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 18 159 Cal. App. 3d 478 (1984) ........................................................................................... 7, 12 19 Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal. 4th 811 (2011) ........................................................................................................... 6 20 Shumate v. Johnson Publ’g Co., 21 139 Cal. App. 2d 121 (1956) ............................................................................................... 20 22 Weller v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 232 Cal. App. 3d 991 (1991) ............................................................................................... 14 23 24 STATE STATUTES 25 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(2) ................................................................................................. 5 26 27 28 441437.6 iii Case No. 3:19-cv-01713-BAS-BGS HERRING NETWORKS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE Case 3:19-cv-01713-BAS-AHG Document 19 Filed 12/02/19 PageID.107 Page 5 of 26 1 OTHER AUTHORITIES 2 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally (last visited Nov. 7, 2017) ............. 9 3 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 4 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/really