Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Anti SLAPP Motion To Dismiss
Anti SLAPP Motion To Dismiss
ROY COCKRUM, ET AL .,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 1:17-cv-1370-ESH
Defendants.
Grant J. Smith**
(FL Bar No. 935212)
STRATEGYSMITH, P.A.
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD
SUITE 130-120
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
(954) 328-9064
[email protected]
Defendant Roger Stone (Stone) respectfully moves that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs
claims for public disclosure of private facts and intentional infliction of emotional distress in
accordance with the District of Columbia Anti-SLAPP Act (D.C. Code 16-5502(a)). In
accordance with the Anti-SLAPP Act (D.C. Code 16-5504(a)) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(d)(2), Stone reserves the right to seek the costs of litigation, including a reasonable
Grant J. Smith**
(FL Bar No. 935212)
STRATEGYSMITH, P.A.
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD
SUITE 130-120
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
(954) 328-9064
[email protected]
ROY COCKRUM, ET AL .,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 1:17-cv-1370-ESH
Defendants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
FACTS ............................................................................................................................................ 4
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................6
B. Applying the Anti-SLAPP act in federal court advances the twin aims of Erie. ...................9
C. Abbas permits application of the Anti-SLAPP Act, as now authoritatively interpreted by the
D.C. Court of Appeals, in federal court. ............................................................................... 11
A. Plaintiffs claims arise from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of
public interest. ......................................................................................................................12
B. Plaintiffs have yet to produce any evidence at all, let alone enough evidence to allow a jury
to rule for them. ....................................................................................................................17
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................18
i
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 5 of 26
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
*Abbas v. Foreign Policy Group, LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .6, 7, 11, 12
Boley v. Atl. Monthly Grp., 950 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D.D.C. 2013) .................................................6, 7
Burke v. Air Serv International, Inc., 685 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2012) .......................................7, 8
Cohen v. Beneficial Industries Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) ...............................................8, 9
*Competitive Enterprises Institute v. Mann, 150 A.3d 1213 (D.C. 2016) ................5, 8, 13, 14, 17
Diwan v. EMP Glob. LLC, 841 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D.D.C. 2012) ..................................................6,7
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) ..................................................7, 9
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) ..........................7, 8
United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999) 11
ii
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 6 of 26
Wilding v. DNC Services Corp., Case No. 16-61511-CIV-Zloch (ECF No. 62, S.D. FL Aug. 25,
2017) ..............................................................................................................................................14
iii
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 7 of 26
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs claim that Roger Stone committed a tort by allegedly conspiring with others to
speak about them. They allege that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National
Committee, and that Stone later conspired with others to strategically publish those emails on
WikiLeaks. Plaintiffs do not claim that Stone himself participated in the hack; rather, they claim
that the mere dissemination of the information is tortious. Plaintiffs seek, in other words, to hold
Stone liable for speech. Not for false speech, defamatory speech, or threatening speech, but for
The District of Columbia has enacted a statutethe Anti-SLAPP Act (D.C. Code 16-
5502)to protect defendants from just such lawsuits. Under that statute, a court must dismiss
any claim arising out of speech related to issues of public interest, unless the plaintiff, at the
outset of the case, produces the same evidence that he would need to survive summary judgment.
This case is nothing more than a group of admittedly liberal attorneys formed after the
2016 election still smarting that their preferred candidate for president lost the election.1 They
went in search of plaintiffs in order use the judicial system as a means to launch their own
private investigation. The group purporting to represent these hand-picked plaintiffs is a group
with a political agenda. What the Plaintiffs have pled is exactly what the anti-SLAPP statutes are
designed to protect against -- a created narrative out of thin air and seek, by nothing more than
there is none. While groups of like-minded individuals have every right to espouse their views
under the protection of the law, they do not have the right to use the court system to accomplish
their goals in a way that is retaliatory. SLAPP suits masquerade as ordinary lawsuits, the
conceptual features which reveal them as SLAPPs are that they are generally meritless suits
1
https://unitedtoprotectdemocracy.org/about/
1
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 8 of 26
brought by large private interests to deter common citizens from exercising their political or legal
The Act was enacted to mitigate the chilling effect of such lawsuits directed against free-
speech and petitioning activities. It establishes a procedure, followed by federal courts as well as
D.C. courts, for prompt review and disposal of state law claims against a person arising from an
act, in furtherance of the persons right of petition or free speech under United States or District
of Columbia law in connection with issues of serious public concern. Under the statute, a court
must dismiss any claim arising out of speech related to issues of public interest, unless the
plaintiff, at the outset of the case, produces the same evidence that he would need to survive
summary judgment. Under the law, in order to survive the Defendants special motion to dismiss,
Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing a probability of success on their claims as explained
The Plaintiffs have no independent knowledge about any allegation they put on paper and
yet, they expect the Defendants to prove that they did not conspire. This is not the way our
system of justice has been designed to work. A Plaintiff must allege or show they suffered harm
at the hands of a Defendant. The Plaintiffs in the instant case do not allege even once, that the
Defendant had anything to do with acquiring the information they allege is now in the public
domain. In fact, they do not even allege that the Defendants disseminated the information.
On all of the matters contained in this lawsuit Stone has been an open book. He has published
each communication he had with a persona using the screen name, Guccifer 2.0 and he openly
shared that he had a friend who talked to Julian Assange and that his friend subsequently related
to Stone the subject matter of the discussion they had -- nothing more. Plaintiffs have been
affected by a storyline perpetuated by a constant barrage of media and politicians that do not
2
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 9 of 26
want the truth to be known, they want their narrative to be true. This is a conclusion searching
for evidence, not evidence leading to a conclusion. Each public pronouncement by Stone was
preceded by the actual party in control of the allegedly hacked information announcing that they
had the information, and they were going to release that information to the public. Stone
participated in the after-the-fact public discourse on matters that were of great national
importance. Stone did not at any time comment in any way on any matter released by third
The institution of a suit against the Trump Campaign and Roger Stone is designated to do
nothing more than make them think twice about their public participation in the future. Plaintiffs
cannot sue anyone they want just because they do not like their expressed political views. As is
apparent in this case, Plaintiffs are suing these Defendants because they have no way to possibly
sue or hold accountable the actual people or entities that may have caused them harm. Our
justice system demands more before someone is subjected to the highly intrusive and very
expensive process that is litigation. Plaintiffs cannot posit a theory with no independent facts or
knowledge and then try to prove it by obtaining the records of a defendant. The Plaintiffs must
make a prima facie showing that Roger Stone had something to do with the harm they are
The Anti-SLAPP Act governs the resolution of D.C. law claims in federal court. Protect
Democracy, the organization of networked lawyers, has stated their purpose is to conduct a
private investigation and cannot wait for U.S. law enforcement and intelligence services to do
their job methodically and appropriately.2 As Plaintiffs claims for public disclosure of private
2
. . . plaintiffs cannot wait for other law enforcement and intelligence investigations into
coordination between Russia and Trump associates to run their course. . .
https://unitedtoprotectdemocracy.org/privacylawsuit/
3
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 10 of 26
facts and intentional infliction of emotional distress trigger the statutes protections, Plaintiffs
have not even attempted to introduce affidavits or other evidence to satisfy the Acts evidentiary
FACTS
On July 22, 2016, days before the Democratic Convention met to nominate Hillary
Clinton for President of the United States, WikiLeaks published a collection of thousands of
work emails sent and received by officials at the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
(Compl. 36.) As a result, the public learned important information about the presidential
WikiLeaks, however, did not redact the emails, so the publication also included details
that Plaintiffs describe as private. (Compl. 4146.) Plaintiffs Roy Cockrum and Eric
Schoenberg, both Democratic Party donors, allege that the emails revealed their social security
numbers, dates of birth, addresses, and other identifying information, which they say they sent to
the DNC in order to get clearances to attend an event with then President Barack Obama.
(Compl. 4344.) Plaintiff Scott Comer, formerly the DNCs Finance Chief of Staff and LGBT
Finance Director, alleges that the emails included information suggesting (and allowing his
Plaintiffs sued Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the Campaign) and Roger Stone
(Stone) over the publication of the emails. They allege that elements of Russian intelligence
(on their own, without involvement of Stone) hacked into the DNCs email systems in July
2015 and maintained that access over the course of the next year. (Compl. 76.) They say
3
The issues presented in this case overlap with the issues in No. 1:17-cv-913-ESH, Deripaska v.
Associated Press, which is also pending before this Court. In that case, a Russian billionaire sued
the Associated Press for defaming him in an article about Paul Manaforts alleged links with
Russia. The Associated Press has sought dismissal of the lawsuit under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP
Act.
4
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 11 of 26
that, in a series of secret meetings in the spring and summer of 2016, the Campaign and Stone
conspired with Russian actors to publish those emails on WikiLeaks in order to harm Hillary
Clintons chances of winning the Presidency. (Compl. 19.) They say that this conspiracy
covered only the release of the emails, not their initial acquisition or transfer to WikiLeaks.
(Compl. 137.)
Plaintiffs raise claims under D.C.-law for public disclosure of private facts and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant Roger Stone filed a motion to dismiss
LEGAL BACKGROUND
A strategic lawsuit against public participation (or SLAPP) is a lawsuit filed by one
side of a political or public policy debate aimed to punish or prevent the expression of opposing
points of view. Competitive Enterprises Institute v. Mann, 150 A.3d 1213, 1231 (D.C. 2016);
Forras v. Rauf, 39 F. Supp. 3d 45, 52 (D.D.C. 2014). SLAPP suits deter speech even if they are
dismissed, because they punish individuals through onerous discovery and perhaps, trial.
The District of Columbia, like many States, has responded to this threat to public debate
by enacting a statute under which the defendant may secure dismissal of a speech-related lawsuit
before discovery. To claim the protection of the act, the defendant must first make a prima facie
showing that the claim at issue arises from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on
issues of public interest. 16-5502(b). If the defendant does so, the court must dismiss the case
with prejudice unless the plaintiff demonstrates that the claim is likely to succeed on the
merits. . . . Id.
5
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 12 of 26
The District Court opinions have waivered on the applicability of the Anti-SLAPP statute
since this Circuits opinion in Abbas v. Foreign Policy Group, LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. 2015).4
The D.C. Court of Appeals has held that this likely-to-succeed standard is substantively the
same as Federal Rule 56s standard for summary judgment. Mann, 150 A.3d at 1238 n.32. The
plaintiff must come forward with evidence that suffices to permit a jury to find for him on
each element of his claim. Id. The main difference between an anti-SLAPP motion and a
summary judgment motion is that the former requires the plaintiff to produce the requisite
evidence before discovery. Id.; see 16-5502(c). Based upon Plaintiffs far-out claims, with no
nexus to Roger Stone but mere correlations to selected events, Plaintiffs will not likely meet their
evidentiary burden at the pleadings stage or at summary judgment. Indeed, Stone presents an
experts declaration to show at the outset that Plaintiffs accounts are obstacles too high to clear.
(Decl. Griffith). In addition, a defendant who prevails on the anti-SLAPP motion may recover
ARGUMENT
The D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act applies in federal court. The Act requires dismissal of
From the 2011 enactment of the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act through 2015, courts in this
Circuit found the Anti-SLAPP Act to be generally applicable at least a half-dozen times in cases
4
See, e.g., Forras v. Rauf, 39 F. Supp. 3d 45, 51-52 (D.D.C. 2014) (applying statute); Abbas v.
Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, 975 F. Supp. 2d 1, 9-11 (D.D.C. 2013) (same), affd in part on other
grounds, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Boley v. Atl. Monthly Grp., 950 F. Supp. 2d 249, 254
(D.D.C. 2013) (same); Farah v. Esquire Magazine, Inc., 863 F. Supp. 2d 29, 36 n.10 (D.D.C.
2012) (same); Diwan v. EMP Glob. LLC, 841 F. Supp. 2d 246, 247 n.1 (D.D.C. 2012) (same);
see also Sherrod v. Breitbart, 843 F. Supp. 2d 83, 85 (D.D.C. 2012) (finding statute to be
substantive but not retroactive), affd, 720 F.3d 932 (D.C. Cir 2013); but see 3M Co. v. Boulter,
842 F. Supp. 2d 85, 96 (D.D.C. 2012) (declining to apply statute in diversity).
6
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 13 of 26
where jurisdiction arose out of diversity among the parties. See Forras, 39 F. Supp. 3d at 51-52;
Abbas, 975 F. Supp. 2d at 9-11; Boley, 950 F. Supp. 2d at 254; Farah, 863 F. Supp. 2d at 36 n.10;
Sherrod, 843 F. Supp. 2d at 84-86 & n.4; and Diwan, 841 F. Supp. 2d at 247 n.1. But the D.C.
Circuit issued its opinion in Abbas, affirming the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim
under Rule 12(b)(6), but reversing on the question of the application of Anti-SLAPP protections
Ever since Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), federal courts hearing
state-law claims have applied state substantive law and federal procedural law. The District of
Columbia is not a state, but the same framework governs federal courts hearing claims under
D.C. local law. Burke v. Air Serv International, Inc., 685 F.3d 1102, 1107 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
Federal courts apply a two-step test to determine whether a state or federal provision governs a
given issue. Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 398 (2010);
see Burke, 685 F.3d at 1107. First, regardless of whether the statute is substantive or procedural,
it is preempted if it comes into direct collision with a valid Federal Rule. Hanna v. Plumer, 380
U.S. 460, 465 (2012). If there is no direct collision, the court proceeds to the second step to
determine whether the state law is substantive or procedural. This issue turns on whether
application of the state provision would advance the twin aims of Erienamely, avoiding
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 428 (1996). If it would, the federal court
A Federal Rule blocks application of a state law only if the two come into direct
collision. Hanna, 380 U.S. at 472. The Anti-SLAPP Act, as interpreted by the D.C. Court of
Appeals, does not come into direct collision with any Federal Rule. A state provision and Federal
7
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 14 of 26
Rule directly collide only where they unavoidabl[y] clash (Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.,
446 U.S. 740, 749 (1980)), unmistakably conflic[t] (Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U.S.
1, 7 (1987)), or flatly contradict each other (Shady Grove, 559 U.S. at 405). Far from flatly
contradicting the Federal Rules, the Anti-SLAPP Act replicates the standard for summary
judgment established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. As the D.C. Court of Appeals put it,
the anti-SLAPP and summary-judgment standards are substantively the same. Mann, 150 A.3d
at 1238 n.32. Two provisions cannot unmistakably conflict if they require application of the
The Anti-SLAPP Act protects defendants more than Rule 56 does. The Act requires
courts to decide motions before discovery; the Rule does not. The Act allows courts to award
attorney fees; the Rule does not. But the substantive standard under the Act and the Rule are the
same, and the Acts different means of enforcing that standard do not conflict with any Federal
Rule. Burke, 685 F.3d at 1108 (quoting Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740, 752 (1980)).
Nothing in the Rules prohibits disposing of a case before discovery; to the contrary, courts may
grant dismissal, judgment on the pleadings, and (in some cases) even summary judgment before
discovery. See Dunning v. Quander, 508 F.3d 8, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). And nothing in the Rules
prohibits courts from awarding fees; to the contrary, Rule 54(d)(2) states that entitlement to fees
depends on substantive law rather than on the Rules of Procedure. The Act complements the
The Supreme Courts decision in Cohen v. Beneficial Industries Loan Corp., 337 U.S.
541 (1949), reinforces this analysis, because it confirms that the Federal Rules usually do not
preempt state provisions that grant defendants extra protection against meritless litigation. The
Federal Rule in Cohen (then Rule 23, now Rule 23.1) established prerequisites for bringing
8
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 15 of 26
shareholder derivative lawsuits; for example, the shareholder had to verify the complaint and
identify previous attempts to use internal corporate procedures to resolve the problem. The state
law in Cohen imposed an additional requirement intended to deter frivolous derivative lawsuits:
Shareholders also had to post bond covering the corporations costs and attorney fees. In an
opinion by Justice Jackson, the Supreme Court held that the state law applied in federal court,
because there was n[o] conflict between federal law and the supplemental safeguards provided
The same reasoning applies here. As in Cohen, the Federal Rules establish certain
minimum requirements for bringing lawsuits. As in Cohen, the state law creates a further
safeguard in order to deter a category of abusive lawsuits (there abusive lawsuits against
corporations, here abusive lawsuits against speakers). As in Cohen, federal courts may apply the
state law, since the state safeguard reinforces the federal provisions and does not contradict
them. The Court should therefore hold that the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act once against applies in
diversity cases.
B. Applying the Anti-SLAPP Act in federal court advances the twin aims of Erie.
The second step of the inquiry asks whether applying state law would advance the twin
aims of the Erie ruleavoiding inequitable administration of state law and discouraging forum-
shopping. Gasperini, 518 U.S. at 428. Applying the Anti-SLAPP Act in federal court would
promote both of these objectives. Eries first aim is avoiding discrimination between litigants
in state court and litigants in federal court. Erie, 304 U.S. at 74. Any such discrimination
contradicts elementary principles of equal protection, which call for uniformity in the
administration of state law regardless of whether enforcement [is] sought in the state or in the
9
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 16 of 26
Applying the Anti-SLAPP Act in the Districts local courts but not in its federal courts
would produce precisely the kind of discrimination, incongruence, and disuniformity that Erie
aims to avoid. If a speaker gets sued in the Districts local courts, he could move to dismiss his
case at once. But if a speaker gets sued in the Districts federal courtssay, because he happens
to be from a different State than the plaintiff, triggering diversity jurisdictionhe would have to
endure months of pleading, discovery, and trial; a discrimination which citizens from other states
were meant to be protected. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 85 (2010). The result is a
two-tier marketplace of ideas, in which speakers receive more or less protection depending on
whether they end up in federal or local court (which, in light of the requirements for federal
diversity jurisdiction, may depend on the States in which they and their adversaries happen to
live or their adversaries resources or ambitions). Erie directs courts to avoid this kind of
disparity.
Eries second aim is to prevent forum-shopping. Hanna, 380 U.S. at 467. To promote this
aim, courts must avoid any divergence between federal and state practice that makes an
effect upon the fortunes of one or both of the litigants. Id. at 468 n.9. Courts may, however,
tolerate trivial discrepancies between federal and state practice such as variations in time limits
for filing pleadingsbecause they are unlikely to prompt forum-shopping. Id. at 468.
Applying the Anti-SLAPP Act in local but not federal court would generate the very
forum-shopping that Erie seeks to avoid. Far from having merely trivial consequences, the
Anti-SLAPP Act makes an important difference to the character of the litigation and the
fortunes of the litigantsto the character of the litigation because it allows the court to cut it
off sooner, and to the fortunes of the litigants because it spares defendants from the necessity of
10
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 17 of 26
squandering their resources on pleading, discovery, and trial. Indeed, the Anti-SLAPP Acts fee-
shifting provision will often deter the plaintiff from filing a fishing-expedition lawsuit in the first
place. There is no doubt, therefore, that if the Anti-SLAPP Act were enforced in state court but
not federal court, a litigant interested in bringing meritless SLAP claims would have a
significant incentive to shop for a federal forum. United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed
Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963, 973 (9th Cir. 1999). Erie instructs federal courts to avoid
such an outcome.
In sum, applying the Anti-SLAPP Act in federal court would advance Eries twin aims of
Erie. This Court must therefore apply the Act to Plaintiffs D.C.-law claims.
Plaintiffs perhaps will argue that the D.C. Circuits decision in Abbas v. Foreign Policy
Group, LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2015), forecloses application of the Anti-SLAPP Act in
federal court. It does not, because it rests on an interpretation of the Anti-SLAPP Act that the
D.C. Court of Appeals has since repudiated. In Abbas, a party invoked the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act
in federal court. In the absence of authoritative guidance from the D.C. Court of Appeals, the
D.C. Circuit interpreted the Acts likelihood of success standard to be different from and more
difficult for plaintiffs to meet than the dismissal and summary-judgment standards established
by Rules 12 and 56. Id. at 1335. The D.C. Circuit stressed, in reaching this conclusion, that the
D.C. Court of Appeals had never interpreted the likelihood of success standard to simply
As interpreted in Abbas, the Act conflicted with the Federal Rules, since it imposed a
more stringent substantive standard than Rules 12 and 56 for reviewing the sufficiency of a
claim. Because the Rules establish the exclusive criteria for testing the sufficiency of a claim
11
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 18 of 26
in federal court, a state provision could not replace those criteria with a different and more
The D.C. Circuit continued, however, that an interesting issue could arise if a State anti-
SLAPP act did in fact exactly mirror Rule 56. Id. at 1335 n.3. Would the Act still be preempted?
The court said that it need not address that hypothetical question, because, as it had
explained, the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Acts dismissal standard [did] not exactly mirror Rule 56. Id.
Indeed, Abbas has nothing at all to say about the present case. The D.C. Circuit expressly
stated that it need not address the interesting but hypothetical question of how Erie applies
to a state law that in fact exactly mirror[s] Rule 56. 783 F.3d at 1335 n.3. This Court must
therefore decide afreshunder Erie, not Abbaswhether the Anti-SLAPP Act, as the D.C.
Court of Appeals has now interpreted it, applies in federal court. For the reasons discussed
earlier, it does.
To invoke the protections of the Anti-SLAPP Act, a defendant must make, in the special
motion to dismiss, a prima facie showing that the claim at issue arises from an act in furtherance
of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest. 16-5502(b). Once the defendant makes
this showing, the court must dismiss the case unless the plaintiff comes forward with evidence
that would suffice to survive summary-judgment. Id. This special motion to dismiss clearly
makes the necessary prima facie showing. Plaintiffs, however, have yet to come forward with
any evidence at all, let alone evidence that would suffice to survive summary judgment.
A. Plaintiffs claims arise from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of
public interest.
The D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act applies to any claim that arises from an act in furtherance of the
12
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 19 of 26
furtherance includes (1) any written or oral statement made in a place open to the public
or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest as well as (2) any other
Plaintiffs D.C.-law tort claims arise from the publication of DNC emails on
WikiLeaks right before the Democratic National Convention. (Compl. 58, 141.)
Defendants must therefore show that the publication satisfies one of the two parts of the
To begin, the publication both (1) occurred in a place open to the public or a public
forum and (2) involved communicating views to members of the public. It occurred in a place
open to the public or a public forum, because websites qualify as places open to the public
and as public forums. Mann, 150 A.3d at 1227. And it involved communicating views to
members of the public, since (in Plaintiffs own words) the emails were published to the entire
Plaintiffs cite Roger Stones public social media postings on Twitter in their complaint. All of
13
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 20 of 26
These are all remarks about the Presidential Election 2016. It is political speech in a
public forum communicating views on those public issues. See Mann, 150 A.3d at 1227. This
lawsuit is a SLAPP suit meant to deter that political speech. The Trump campaign in its special
motion to dismiss refers to emails discussing political matters within the DNC. Reference to that
political controversy demonstrates the applicability of the Anti-SLAPP statute as well for Roger
Stone. In fact, the controversy within the Democratic National Committee was the subject of a
lawsuit recently dismissed in the Southern District of Florida involving allegations the DNC was
in cahoots with the Clinton campaign and sought to tip the scales in her favor in the Democratic
primaries. See Wilding v. DNC Services Corp., Case No. 16-61511-CIV-Zloch (ECF No. 62, S.D.
5 Roger Stones posting to Guccifer 2.0 would be contextually relevant, but Plaintiffs do not
share Stones comments or reasoning.
14
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 21 of 26
FL Aug. 25, 2017). The publication of Stones tweets and the DNCs emails has an obvious
connection with issues of public interest. The emails also revealed the nature of the
Democratic Partys interactions with wealthy donors, information that should interest any citizen
who wants to find out whether elected officials are in the pocket of moneyed interests.
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 370 (2010). The emails likewise showed the closeness of
the partys ties to the media, the great interpreters between the government and the people.
The complaint confirms all of these points. It states that the emails received coverage in
papers ranging from The New York Times to Comers hometown newspaper. (Compl. 45,
141.) The emails would not have received such widespread coverage if they had no connection
The Act turns on the character of the defendants speech as a whole, not on the character
of each individual statement that the defendant utters. It applies if the act from which the claim
arises furthers the right of public advocacy. 16-5502(a). In this case, the act from which
Plaintiffs claims arise is the publication of a large collection of emails. The critical question,
then, is whether that single act of publication has the requisite connection with an issue of public
interest (not whether each individual email does). It does, and the Act thus applies to Plaintiffs
claims.
The Act also turns on the primary purpose of the defendants speech, not on its ancillary
effects. To distinguish issues of public interest from issues of private interest, courts must
consider whether the defendants statements are directed primarily toward commenting on or
sharing information about a matter of public significance, or instead toward protecting the
15
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 22 of 26
DNC emails was plainly directed primarily toward sharing information about a matter of
National Committee. (See Compl. 13.) No allegation is made that the dissemination of Plaintiff
Comers emails were directed primarily toward exposing his sexual preference or Plaintiffs
Cockrum and Schoenbergs emails were to expose their financial information of Plaintiffs
The Acts language is in all events so sweeping that it encompasses all of the emails
published by WikiLeaks. The Act applies where the defendant engages in speech in connection
with an issue of public interest. 16-5501(1) (emphasis added). Issue of public interest, in
turn, includes any issue related to public affairs. 16-5501(3). In connection with and
related to are broad phrases. Work emails sent by officials of a political party necessarily have
a connection with issues that are related to public affairs, even if not every single email
specifically discusses public affairs. That, once more, means that the Act applies to Plaintiffs
claims.
Any other interpretation would make a parody of the Acts protections. Many notable
exercises of the right of free speech have involved the publication of massive collections of
leaked documentsthe New York Times publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971,
WikiLeaks publication of United States diplomatic cables in 2010, the International Committee
of Investigative Journalists publication of the Panama Papers in 2015, and so on. In each such
case, the collections as a whole plainly concerned issues of profound public importance, even
though some individual documents within the collection may well have discussed only private
matters. Yet the publishers of these documents would lose the Anti-SLAPP Acts protection if
courts were to scrutinize the document line by line to separate out the parts that relate to public
16
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 23 of 26
affairs from the parts that do not. The D.C. Council could not have intended such a result when it
enacted the Anti-SLAPP Act to protect a particular value of a high orderthe right to free
speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Mann, 150 A.3d at 1231. The Anti-SLAPP Act
B. Plaintiffs have yet to produce any evidence at all, let alone enough evidence to allow a
jury to rule for them.
To overcome Stones anti-SLAPP motion, Plaintiffs must produce evidence that would
suffice to survive summary judgment. Mann, 150 A.3d at 1238 n.32. In other words, they must
permit a jury to reasonably find in the plaintiffs favor. Id. at 1221. Compare Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(c)(1), which requires a party to rely on affidavits and other evidencenot
documents, nothing. Even though it is not his burden, Roger Stone has provided sworn evidence
that demonstrates that Plaintiffs will not be able to produce the evidence sufficient to overcome a
Plaintiffs would have to prove by sworn evidence that Russian hackers broke into the
DNC computers that necessarily had to store the data in question in Washington, D.C. They
have not yet alleged properly that the servers in question were physically located in the District.
(See Stones Motion to Dismiss Rule 12). The two questions expert Virgil Griffith was asked
was: 1) Are the allegations of the complaint clear enough to determine if it is possible to identify
the hackers of a databased described as belonging to the Democratic National Committee; and,
individuals? As to the first question, the Plaintiffs did not make allegations clear enough to
17
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 24 of 26
determine if the Plaintiffs are even on the right track. Meaning, are they even describing a
computer hacking of a computer database server? The answer is, no. (Decl. Griffith 9). As to
the second question, it would be near impossible for private plaintiffs to sufficiently prove that a
hack occurred by certain individual Russians or tied to Russian intelligence. (Decl. Griffith 9-
11). If the hack of the DNCs database cannot be linked to Russian hackers and consequently
Russian intelligence, then every other conclusion in the complaint falls to the side. This would
mean some other individual or group gave the DNCs data to WikiLeaks. This fact would
exonerate Roger Stone. It also emphasizes the nature of Stones public social media posting
political speech.
Consequently Plaintiffs have not produced evidence that is legally sufficient to permit a
jury to reasonably find in their favor on each of the elements of their claims. All Plaintiffs
have at the moment are conclusory allegations. Plaintiffs, therefore, cannot fulfill their burden
under the Anti-SLAPP Act. The Court should dismiss their D.C.-law claims for public disclosure
CONCLUSION
In accordance with the District of Columbia Anti-SLAPP Act, the Court should dismiss
Plaintiffs claims for public disclosure of private facts and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.
18
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 25 of 26
Grant J. Smith**
(FL Bar No. 935212)
STRATEGYSMITH, P.A.
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD
SUITE 130-120
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
(954) 328-9064
[email protected]
19
Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 15 Filed 09/05/17 Page 26 of 26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on September 5, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court
using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all registered parties.