Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00236/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00236-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION 

OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00236-WHO 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

STAY OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Re: Dkt. No. 138

Defendants move for a stay of the federal claims in this case, pending the resolution of 

their appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the denial of their special motion to strike the state law claims 

pursuant to California’s Anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16. The motion is 

DENIED.

The appeal of the denial of the Anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays all proceedings 

(including discovery) regarding the state law claims. See, e.g., All One God Faith, Inc. v. Hain 

Celestial Grp., Inc., No. C 09-03517 JF (HRL), 2009 WL 4907433, at *2 n. 2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 

2009). Given the overlapping nature between the remaining federal claims – the civil RICO claim 

(based on the predicate act of violation of the federal identity theft statute) and the federal 

wiretapping claim – and the appealed state law claims, the defendants argue that the automatic 

stay applies to the federal claims. Mot. at 4-5. I disagree. While there is an overlap between the 

RICO claim and the state law claims (because the acts of the enterprise alleged by plaintiffs cover 

the acts included in the state law claims), if the Ninth Circuit reverses my ruling denying the 

special motion to strike and concludes that plaintiffs have not and could not state certain of their 

state law claims, the RICO claim and the wiretapping claim would nonetheless survive and 

Case 3:16-cv-00236-WHO Document 146 Filed 12/22/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

continue.1 Therefore, the federal claims do not fall within the automatic stay.

I could, however, stay the federal claims in my discretion if defendants were able to meet 

the four-prong test for a stay on appeal: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing 

that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured 

absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested 

in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. See, e.g., Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 

No. 10-CV-940-IEG WVG, 2011 WL 613571, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011) (applying Nken v. 

Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009) four-part test on motion to stay federal claims while denial of 

anti-SLAPP as to state law claims was on appeal). The defendants meet none of the four prongs. 

To the contrary, the interests of justice are best served by completing as much non-duplicative 

discovery as possible so that the case can get to trial as quickly as possible once it returns from the 

Ninth Circuit. 

At the same time, this case will not go to trial until the Ninth Circuit has ruled on the Anti -

SLAPP motion, and that ruling may impact how the case is litigated and tried. In order to 

minimize any undue burden on the parties but still allow this case to progress on the federal claims 

in a sensible and efficient manner, I rule as follows:

1. Written discovery and document production on the federal claims shall not be stayed 

and shall continue. If the parties have disputes regarding whether some identifiable 

subset of discovery requests are relevant solely to the stayed state law claims, those 

disputes may be submitted for my resolution pursuant to my Standing Order on 

 

1

I do not agree with defendants’ argument that the RICO claim will be impacted by the Ninth

Circuit’s decision concerning whether plaintiffs have alleged proximate cause for their fraud claim 

because proximate cause under RICO is not coextensive with the concept of proximate cause 

under state law. In addition, while the federal wiretapping claim depends upon a purpose to 

commit a crime or tort – here the alleged invasion of privacy – as plaintiffs point out, the aimedfor crime or tort need not have been committed, only intended. See, e.g., Med. Lab. Mgmt. 

Consultants v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., 30 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1205 (D. Ariz. 1998), aff'd, 306 

F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2002) (“the question is not whether they are ultimately liable for conduct found 

to be tortious, but whether, at the time the recording took place, they recorded the conversation 

with the express intent of committing a tort.”). Therefore, even if the Ninth Circuit finds that 

plaintiffs cannot under any circumstances allege an invasion of privacy under California law that 

would not necessarily preclude their ability to state a claim under the federal wiretapping statute

based on defendants’ intent to violate plaintiffs’ privacy.

Case 3:16-cv-00236-WHO Document 146 Filed 12/22/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Discovery Disputes.

2. Depositions of percipient witnesses shall be STAYED, absent further order of the 

Court. Parties may apply to proceed with a specified deposition of a percipient witness 

based on good cause, such as preservation of testimony. Parties may depose corporate 

document custodians to test the bounds of an opposing party’s document production or

preservation, but the deposition must be limited to that purpose and no other. I expect 

that counsel will be judicious before seeking any such depositions. If the parties 

cannot agree that a need exists to conduct a limited document production and 

preservation deposition, that dispute may be submitted for my resolution pursuant to 

my Standing Order on Discovery Disputes.

The January 24, 2017 Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to March 14, 2017 

at 2:00 p.m. At that conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss whether and how long the 

case management deadlines should be continued in light of the status of defendants’ appeal and 

the progress on written discovery and document production. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00236-WHO Document 146 Filed 12/22/16 Page 3 of 3