Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03695/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03695-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 

---

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

PLANET AID, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

REVEAL, CENTER FOR 

INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-03695-MMC (JSC)

ORDER RE: FALSE CLAIMS ACT 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 263

Management of discovery in connection with Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion was 

assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge on September 10, 2018. Since that date, the Court 

has held numerous hearings and issued many orders. In an attempt to bring discovery to a close, 

on October 28, 2019, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and identify all of their 

remaining discovery requests and disputes. In particular, the Court ordered:

If Plaintiffs contend that they need more discovery to respond to 

Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion than Defendants have already 

produced (other than the identified depositions), by November 5, 

2019 Plaintiffs must identify to Defendants the additional discovery 

with specificity and the reasons they need the discovery.

(Dkt. No. 241 at 2.) The Court set a specific schedule requiring the parties to meet and confer on 

their remaining discovery requests and to file on the docket pleadings documenting those requests 

and responses. Finally, the Court also ordered the parties to meet and confer in person at the 

courthouse on November 21, 2019, and on that day the Court held a hearing and addressed all of 

the parties’ remaining discovery disputes, with a few exceptions noted on the record. (See Dkt. 

Nos. 241, 245, 246, 247.)

Now pending before the Court is a joint discovery dispute letter regarding Plaintiffs’ 

Case 3:17-cv-03695-MMC Document 268 Filed 02/24/20 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

request for all documents reflecting any discussions Defendants or their sources had regarding the 

False Claims Act. The discovery Plaintiffs now seek, however, was not requested in response to 

the Court’s October 28, 2019 order and was not raised at the November 21, 2019 hearing. Instead, 

the only discovery Plaintiffs requested on the issue was “discovery relating to a confidential 

source who used the False Claims Act to inappropriately obtain certain statements. When 

Defendants were concerned that a key source could turn against them, Ngwira responded that 

Malabwe would not do so because of the False Claims Act.” (Dkt. No. 246 at 3.) At the 

November 21, 2019 hearing, after the parties met and conferred in person, Plaintiffs represented 

that the matter was resolved. (Dkt. No. 250 at 15:21-16:21.) Plaintiffs’ new request for all 

documents referencing the False Claims Act is thus untimely. 

Plaintiffs’ “concern over redactions in the email relating to Mr. Malabwe, CIR 044464-

65,” (Dkt. No. 263 at 4), is especially baffling. This is the very email Plaintiffs referenced in 

response to the Court’s October 28, 2019 Order, (see Dkt. No. 246 at 3), yet they never requested 

that the redactions be removed or that the Court review the redactions in camera. Their current 

request plainly violates the October 28, 2019 Order requiring them to identify all additional 

needed discovery to respond to the anti-SLAPP motion.

Nor does Mr. Smith’s subsequent deposition testimony excuse Plaintiffs’ failure to request 

False Claims Act documents in response to the October 28, 2019 Order. Plaintiffs were well 

aware of a False Claims Act issue and could have requested such documents at the time. Indeed, 

Plaintiffs contend that they in fact requested the documents in 2018. (Dkt. No. 263 at 1-2.) That 

they did not think of requesting in response to the October 28, 2019 Order the documents that they 

believe they should have produced earlier does not justify reopening discovery. The entire point 

of the October 28, 2019 Order was to surface any remaining discovery disputes; if Plaintiffs 

believed that earlier requests had not been sufficiently answered, they were required to raise that 

issue in response to the October 28, 2019 Order. 

Plaintiffs’ insistence that they somehow preserved the argument at the November 21, 2019 

hearing is also wrong. As the transcript shows, the issue “left to another day” was whether Mr. 

Smith would improperly refuse to answer a specific question. (Dkt. No. 250 at 15:25-16:9.) 

Case 3:17-cv-03695-MMC Document 268 Filed 02/24/20 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

There was no suggestion that an open issue was the production of documents on this topic. Thus, 

Plaintiff’s request to compel the production of additional documents is DENIED.

As for Mr. Smith’s testimony, which occurred after November 21, 2019, Plaintiffs could 

not have raised a challenge to Mr. Smith improperly refusing to answer questions on the grounds 

of attorney-client privilege prior to the deposition, so the request, such as it is, is not untimely. 

What the deposition transcript reflects, however, is that counsel instructed the witness not to 

answer if the answer would involve The Center for Investigative Reporting’s attorney’s advice. 

That instruction, on its face, is not improper given the question. And Mr. Smith testified that the 

discussion involved advice from an attorney. (Dkt. No. 263-1 at 10.) While, upon further briefing 

and taking of evidence, it might turn out that some of the questions could have been answered

without revealing attorney advice, the Court declines to embark upon that path. The relevance of 

the testimony is simply too remote to make such an exercise proportional under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). Plaintiff’s request to compel further testimony is DENIED.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 263.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2020

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-03695-MMC Document 268 Filed 02/24/20 Page 3 of 3