Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02051/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02051-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1441lb Removal- Libel, Assault, Slander

---

1

17-cv-2051-WQH-JLB

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GASPAR PHYSICAL 

THERAPY, INC., a California 

Professional Corporation; and 

BRIAN STONE, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAVID W. “DAVE” ROBERTS,

an individual; RE-ELECT 

SUPERVISOR DAVE ROBERTS 

2016, a corporation or other form 

of entity; and DOES 1-20,

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-2051-WQH-JLB

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Application to Stay Defendant’s Motion to Strike 

and Allow Plaintiffs to Conduct Discovery (ECF No. 12) filed by Plaintiffs Gaspar 

Physical Therapy, Inc. and Brian Stone.

Case 3:17-cv-02051-WQH-MSB Document 27 Filed 02/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-cv-2051-WQH-JLB

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. Background

On October 5, 2017, Plaintiffs Gaspar Physical Therapy, Inc. and Brian Stone filed 

the Complaint (ECF No. 1) against Defendants David W. Roberts and Re-Elect Supervisor 

Dave Roberts 2016. 

On November 13, 2017, Defendant Roberts filed a Motion to Strike All Causes of 

Action Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP1

Statute) with a December 18, 2017 hearing date (the “Anti-SLAPP Motion”). (ECF No. 6). 

The Anti-SLAPP Motion is based on a Memorandum of Points and Authorities (ECF No. 

6-1), two Declarations (ECF Nos. 6-2 and 6-3), and seven Exhibits (ECF Nos. 6-5 through 

6-11). 

On November 22, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Application to Stay Defendant’s Motion 

to Strike and Allow Plaintiffs to Conduct Discovery (the “Motion for Discovery”) (ECF 

No. 12). Plaintiffs seek to conduct discovery on fourteen issues by propounding requests 

for productions, interrogatories, and conducting seven depositions. Id. at 3–5. On 

November 28, 2017, the Court issued an Order (ECF No. 14) vacating the December 18, 

2017 hearing date for the Anti-SLAPP Motion and setting a briefing schedule for the 

Motion for Discovery. On December 15, 2017, Roberts filed a Response to the Motion for 

Discovery. (ECF No. 15).2 On January 4, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Reply in support of the 

Motion for Discovery. (ECF No. 26).

II. Discussion 

California’s Anti-SLAPP Statute applies to “cause[s] of action against a person 

arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free 

speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection 

with a public issue.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1). The Anti-SLAPP Statute gives 

 

1 SLAPP is an acronym for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. 

v. Dakar, 611 F.3d 590, 595 (9th Cir. 2010). 

2 Roberts has also filed a Second Response to the Motion for Discovery addressing six Exhibits to the 

Motion for Discovery that Plaintiff filed after December 15, 2017. (ECF No. 21). 

Case 3:17-cv-02051-WQH-MSB Document 27 Filed 02/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-cv-2051-WQH-JLB

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

defendants faced with such causes of action the option to file “a special motion to strike,”

id., commonly referred to as an “anti-SLAPP motion,” see, e.g., Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. 

Wornick, 264 F.3d 832, 838 (9th Cir. 2001). A court should grant an anti-SLAPP motion 

seeking to strike a cause of action that falls within the scope of § 425.16(b)(1) “unless the 

court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff 

will prevail on the claim.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1). “In making [that] 

determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing 

affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.” Id. § 425.16(b)(2). 

Under the terms of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(g), the filing of an anti-SLAPP motion 

stays all discovery proceedings in the action until the court enters an order ruling on the 

anti-SLAPP motion. 

In Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832, 846–47 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals held that the discovery stay required by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 

425.16(g) does not apply in federal court. The Court of Appeals found that § 425.16(g) 

“directly collides” with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), which requires discovery “where the 

nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to its 

opposition.” Metabolife, 264 F.3d at 846 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 

U.S. 242, 250 n.5 (1986)). The Court of Appeals ordered the district court to allow 

discovery as to information that it found “[was] in the defendants’ exclusive control,” and 

“may [have] be[en] highly probative” of the falsity of the statements in question (an 

element for which the Metabolife plaintiff had the burden of production in order to survive 

the Metabolife defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion). Id. at 847; see also id. at 850 (“The 

district court’s decision not to allow Metabolife discovery on falsity issues . . . is 

REVERSED because Metabolife identified and requested discovery of probative 

information solely available from the defendants.”).

The Anti-SLAPP Motion (ECF No. 6) is not “founded on purely legal arguments” 

considering it was filed with two declarations (ECF Nos. 6-2 and 6-3), and seven Exhibits 

(ECF Nos. 6-5 through 6-11). Z.F. v. Ripon Unified Sch. Dist., 482 F. App’x 239, 240 (9th 

Case 3:17-cv-02051-WQH-MSB Document 27 Filed 02/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-cv-2051-WQH-JLB

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

Cir. 2012). Consequently, the Anti-SLAPP Motion “must be treated as though it were a 

motion for summary judgment and discovery must be permitted.” Id. Plaintiffs request

discovery on fourteen issues. (ECF No. 12). Under Metabolife, Plaintiffs’ requests for 

discovery should be granted only if they seek information that (1) is in the Defendants’ 

exclusive control and (2) may be highly probative of issues on which Plaintiffs must 

produce evidence in order to defeat the Anti-SLAPP Motion. 477 U.S. at 850. 

III. Conclusion

The Court HEREBY:

1. GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to stay the Anti-SLAPP motion. See ECF No. 12. 

2. REFERS Plaintiffs’ requests for discovery, see ECF No. 12, to the United States 

Magistrate Judge. 

Dated: February 9, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02051-WQH-MSB Document 27 Filed 02/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4