Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02156/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02156-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assualt,Slander

---

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 * This motion was determined to be suitable for decision

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRAD REGER, ) 02:05-cv-2156-GEB-GGH

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

PATRICK SMITH; SIERRA MEDICAL )

SERVICES ALLIANCE d/b/a/ SEMSA, )

REMESA, and DOES 1-50, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

On January 20, 2006, Defendants filed a motion to strike

Plaintiff’s Complaint under California Code of Civil Procedure

§ 425.16 (“Section 425.16"), arguing Plaintiff cannot establish

certain elements of his libel claim. On February 10, 2006, Plaintiff

filed a motion to continue the hearing on the motion to strike,

arguing he needs additional time to conduct discovery to respond to

Defendants’ motion. (Pl.’s Mot. to Continue at 1.) On February 17,

2006, Defendants filed an Opposition, arguing that continuing the

hearing to conduct discovery would defeat the purpose of

Section 425.16. (Defs.’ Opp’n to Mot. to Continue at 6-7.) 

Case 2:05-cv-02156-GEB-GGH Document 24 Filed 02/24/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Section 425.16 “was enacted to allow early dismissal of

meritless first amendment cases aimed at chilling expression through

costly, time-consuming litigation. Under the statute, a civil

defendant may move to strike a cause of action based on an ‘act in

furtherance of the right to petition or free speech.’” Metabolife

Int’l Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832, 839-40 (9th Cir. 2001). A motion

to strike under Section 425.16 has several unique procedural

components: 

Subsection 425.16(f) provides that [a motion to

strike] may be filed within sixty days of the

filing of the complaint or, at the court’s

discretion, at any later date. Subsection

425.16(g) provides that the filing of [a motion to

strike] automatically stays all further discovery

until the court rules on the motion. However,

“the court, on noticed motion and for good cause

shown, may order that specified discovery be

conducted notwithstanding this subdivision.”

§ 425.16(g). Together, these two subsections 

create a default rule that allows the defendant

served with a complaint to immediately put the

plaintiff to his or her proof before the plaintiff

can conduct discovery.

Id. at 846. Therefore, “Section 425.16 limits discovery and makes

further discovery an exception, rather than the rule.” Id. However,

the Ninth Circuit has held that “the discovery-limiting aspects” of

subsections 425.16(f) and (g) do not apply in federal court because

these subsections “collide” with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 

Id. (citing Rogers v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 57 F. Supp. 2d 973,

980-84 (C.D. Cal. 1999). 

Plaintiff requests the opportunity to conduct discovery on

two issues raised by the motion to strike, specifically, (1) the

falsity of the alleged defamatory statement, and (2) whether

Defendants acted with malice. (Pl.’s Reply at 1.) Plaintiff will be

granted the opportunity to conduct this discovery before hearing on

Case 2:05-cv-02156-GEB-GGH Document 24 Filed 02/24/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

the motion to strike. Metabolife, 264 F.3d at 846 (trial court

correctly determined it should not analyze the issue of malice because

the plaintiff had not yet had an opportunity to conduct discovery on

the issue); Rogers, 57 F. Supp. 2d at 982 (motion to continue granted

because the plaintiff needed to conduct discovery as to information

within the control of the defendants). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion

to continue the hearing on Defendants’ motion to strike is granted. 

The remaining issue is how long of a continuance should be

granted so Plaintiff has sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery. 

Plaintiff asserts approximately one hundred and twenty days is needed

to conduct discovery, and suggests the motion to strike be heard in

late June 2006. (Pl.’s Mot. to Continue at 4.) Defendants state

“[i]f the Court does grant a continuance, Defendants request that the

hearing date be set in the latter part of June 2006.” (Def.’s Opp’n

to Mot. to Continue at 6-7.) Therefore, the motion to strike is

rescheduled for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on June 26, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02156-GEB-GGH Document 24 Filed 02/24/06 Page 3 of 3