N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT JOHN J. HUR

R Y e t a l., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. FINANC IAL INDUSTR

Y R EGULATOR

Y AUTHORITY, INC
. (FINR A), a De la

ware c orporat ion; SC O TT M . ANDER SON,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-15748 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-02490-R OS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R osly n O. Silve r, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 12, 2019 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : TASHIM A, GR

AB E R , a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiffs John a

n d JustineHurry

an d se ve ra l busine ss e ntitie s brought this
a c tion a ga inst De fe nda

nts Fina nc ia l Industry R e gula

tory Authority , Inc
. (" FINR A" ) an d Sc ott Ande rse n, a lle g ing tha t De fe nda nts e nga ge d in unla

wful 

# F IL ED
JUL 29 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.be havior a

rising prim arily

out of FINR

A’ s inve stiga

tion of som e of the Hurry s’ busine sse s. The distric t c ourt dism isse d m ost of the c la im s a n d la te r grante d
sum m ary judgm e nt to De fe nda

n ts on the re m a ining c la im s . Pla intiffs tim e ly
a ppe a l, a nd we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly he ld tha t re gula t ory im m unity ba rs m any of Pla i ntiffs’ c la im s, inc luding those c la im s a lle ging tha

t De fe nda n ts e x c e e d e d the
sc ope o f the i r re gula

tory and inve stiga

tory a uthority . Se e Northsta

r Fin. Advisors, Inc
. v. Sc hwa

b Invs., 904 F.3d 821, 828 (9th C ir. 2018) (holding tha t we re vie w de
novo a dism i ssa l of c l a im s). De fe nda nts a re im m une for a c tions ta

ke n " unde r the
a e gis of the [Se c uritie s Exc ha nge Ac t of 1934’ s ] de le g a te d a uthority ." Spa

rta Surgic a l C orp. v. Na

t’ l Ass’ n of Se c . De a le rs, Inc ., 159 F.3d 1209, 1214 (9th C ir. 1998), ove rrule d

in othe r part by

M e rrill Ly

nc h, Pie rc e , Fe nne r & Sm ith Inc . v. M anning, 136 S. C t. 1562 (2016). Tha t im m unity e xte nds to De fe nda

nts’ inve stiga tory a c t ions. Se e P’ ship Exc h. Se c . C o. v. Na t’ l Ass’ n of Se c . De a le rs, Inc
. , 169 F.3d 606, 608 (9th C ir. 1999) (" Sparta a dm i ts of no e x c e p tions: if the
a c tion is ta

ke n unde r the ‘ a e gis of the Exc ha nge Ac t’ s de le gate d a

uthority ,’ the NASD [the Nat iona l Assoc iation of Se c uritie s De a l e rs, FINR A’ s pre vious na

m e ] is prote c te d by a bsolute im

m unity from m one y

dam a ge s." (quoting Spa

rta , 159 F.3d
a t 1214)); se e a lso id. a

t 607 (a ffirm ing re gula

tory im m unity to the NASD e ve n
2though thepla intiffs a lle ge d " that the NASD, in its inve s tiga tory and
a dm inistra

tive a c tions, we nt be y ond the sc ope of its a uthority and ignore d its disc iplina ry a uthority " ). 2. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly dism isse d Pla intiffs’ c la im unde r the Priva c y Ac t of 1974, 5 U.S.C
. § 552a
. The Ac t a pplie s to re c ords of na

tura l pe rsons only , and only natura l pe rsons m a y sue unde r the Ac t. St. M ic h a e l’ s C onva le sc e n t Hosp. v. C a lifornia , 643 F.2d 1369, 1373 (9th C ir. 1981). B e fore the distric t c ourt, a nd be fore us, De fe nda

nts a rgue d tha t Pla intiffs a lle ge d

disc losure of re c ords of busine sse s only . Pla i ntiffs’ fa ilure to re spond to tha t a rgum e n t c onstitute s wa ive r. O’ Guinn v. Love loc k C orr. C tr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1063 n.3 (9th C ir. 2007); Sm ith v. M arsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999). 3. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly grante d sum m ary judgm e n t to De fe nda nts on the l e a k -re late d c la im s. Se e B uono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th C ir. 2004) (holding tha

t we re vie w de novo a

grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt). B oth sta

t e -law
c la im s re quire that Pla intiffs prove that De fe nda nts publishe d a

sta t e m e nt. W a tkins v. Arpa io, 367 P.3d 72, 77 (Ariz . C t. App. 2016) (fa lse light); Dube v. Likins, 167 P.3d 93, 104 (Ariz . C t. App. 2007) (de fa m a tion). Vie wing the e vide nc e in the light
m ost fa vora ble to Pla intiffs, Pla intiffs ha ve not done " m o re tha

n sim ply show tha t the re is som e m e ta

phy s ic a l doubt a s to" whe the r De fe nda nts le ake d inform a tion to
3the re porte r. M atsushita Ele c . Indus. C o . v. Ze nith R a dio C orp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Eve n disc re diting the dire c t e v ide nc e tha

t a n e m ploy e e of one of the Hurry s’ busine sse s wa s the re porte r’ s sourc e for ne a rly a ll the inform a tion, there porte r’ s
sourc e is still unknown. No e vide nc e in the re c ord he l ps a fa c t-finde r de c ide whe the r the sourc e wa s a

FINR A e m ploy e e , an e m

ploy e e of the Se c uritie s a nd Exc ha nge C om m ission, or a

third pa rty (suc h a s the re porte r him se lf) who obta ine d the i nform a tion illic itly

or by ha ppe nsta nc e . W ithout a

ny a d ditiona l e v i de nc e , a ll those options a

re e qua lly pla usible , a nd only spe c ulation c o uld na

rrow the sourc e down to FINR

A . " M e re a lle gation a

nd spe c ulation do not c re a te a fa c tua l dispute for purpose s of sum

m ary judgm e nt." Loom is v. C ornish, 836 F.3d 991, 997 (9th C ir. 2016) (a lte ra tion om itte d) (quoting Ne lson v. Pim a C m ty . C oll., 83 F.3d 1075, 1081–82 (9th C ir. 1996)). W e disa gre e with Pla intiffs tha t a re a sona ble jury c ould
c onc lude tha

t FINR A e nga ge d

in a c ove r-up with re s pe c t to the le a ks a lle ge d in this c a s e . 4. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by de ny ing Pla intiffs’ untim e l y re que st for a dditiona l disc o ve ry . Se e M artine z v. Ae ro C aribbe an, 764 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th C ir. 2014) (holding tha t we re vie w for a

buse of disc re tion a distric t c o urt’ s disc ove ry

rulings). Pla intiffs wa ite d m ore tha n five we e k s a fte r
4both the origina l de p osition a nd the e xpira

tion of disc o ve ry

be fore re que sting the
se c o nd de position, e ve n though the distric t c ourt ha d pre side d ove r a sta tus he aring in the m e antim e and ha d e xte nde d the disc ove ry de a dline for othe r purpose s. AFFIRM E D.

5