EFTA01093254Set 9
2015-10-0938p15,352w
California decisions follow the restatement rule."); Schneider v. United Airlines, Inc, 256 Cal. Rptr. 71, 74 (Cal.
Ct. App. 1989) ("[T]he originator of the defamatory matter can be liable ... could reasonably have foreseen the repetition."' (quoting
Mclanny v. Cry. ofSanta Clam, 168 Cal. Rptr. 89, 93 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980))). "It is the foreseeable subsequent
10 The court notes ... public."' Id. at 685 (quoting Be/li v.
Roberts Bros. Furs, 49 Cal. Rptr. 625, 629 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966)). Because Green's claim is instead based on the
November
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01093254.pdf
EFTA01099134Set 9
2015-03-0226p11,196w
Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
18
EFTA01099151
4 Med. L. Rptr. 1402 Craig v. Moore
III rowers of violations) may be retarding
In conclusion, I find the legislative his- achievement of substantial ... March 9, 1977, JA 67n.
EXHIBIT I
I
EFTA01099152
Craig". Moon 4 Med. L. Rptr. 1403
Libel action against radio station. On ants made this statement knowing ... U.S.C.A. 7 1978) -F.2d-, 4
torial control andjudgment. It has yet to Med. L Rptr. 1016 (involving Senator
be demonstrated how governmental Proxmire's "opinion" ofplaintiffHutchin-
regulation of this crucial
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01099134.pdf
EFTA00610600Set 9
2009-07-0822p4,664w
Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 31 Cal. 4th 728, 74 P.2d 737, 3 Cal. Rptr. 3d
(2003). 13
Jenkins v. State, 978 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2008). 6
Levin, Middlebrooks ... insurance premiums for family law attorneys. 19
Ca1.App.4th at 35-6, 23 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 256-57.
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16. "SLAPP" stands for "strategic lawsuits
against ... EFTA00610617
Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 31 Cal. 4th 728, 74 P.2d 737, 3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 636
(2003). By contrast, these problems are prevented before they even take root
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00610600.pdf
EFTA00596449Set 9
2008-08-0836p11,867w
McGarry v. University ojSan Diego,
64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 467 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) 28, 29
iii
D14'71584534593 3970112-000042
EFTA00596452
O'Connor v. Donaldson ... many other on-point examples, in McGarry v. University ofSan
Diego, 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 467 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007), the plaintiff— like Edwards here — argued that
the journalist
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00596449.pdf
EFTA00616958Set 9
24p4,531w
So.2d 380 (Fla. 2007) 8, 9, 12
Fenelon v. Superior Court,
273 Cal. Rptr. 367, 370-71 (Cal. App. 1990) 5
Ferrell v. State,
29 So.3d ... California decision Fenelon v. Superior Court, 273 Cal. Rptr. 367,
370-71 (Cal. App. 1990). Both of those jurisdictions have unambiguously held that
the litigation privilege does
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00616958.pdf
EFTA01250614Set 9
2010-04-3038p10,141w
copy ofE & J Gallo Winery v.
Encana Energy Servs.. Inc., 33 Med. L. Rptr. 1413 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (Preska, J.).
4. Annexed hereto as Exhibit B is a true ... correct copy of L.W, v. Knox County
Bd. ofEduc. 36 Med. L. Rptr. 1721 (E.D. Tenn. 2008).
5. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C is the Supplementary Affidavit of George Rush
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01250614.pdf
EFTA00731431Set 9
2008-07-1066p17,583w
State v. Ehli, 681 .2d 808
2004), and People v. Harrisson 36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 264 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)).
However, the cases cited involve language much broader than ... upholding a condition prohibiting the defendant
from using the Internet); Harrisson, 36 Cal Rptr. 3d at 266, 271 (upholding a
condition prohibiting use of the Internet "in any way whatsoever
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00731431.pdf
EFTA01074706Set 9
2015-09-0288p20,428w
construe a statute." C-Y Devel. Co. v. City of
Redlands, 187 Cal. Rptr. 370, 374 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982). When a statute is vague, courts
sometimes turn ... look for congressional intent from legislative history."); accord C-Y Devel. Co., 187 Cal. Rptr.
at 374 ("An exception has sometimes been made where the drafters' views were clearly
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01074706.pdf
EFTA01115564Set 9
24p4,534w
So.2d 380 (Fla. 2007) 8, 9, 12
Fenelon v. Superior Court,
273 Cal. Rptr. 367, 370-71 (Cal. App. 1990) 5
Ferrell v. State,
29 So.3d ... California decision Fenelon v. Superior Court, 273 Cal. Rptr. 367,
370-71 (Cal. App. 1990). Both of those jurisdictions have unambiguously held that
the litigation privilege does
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01115564.pdf
EFTA00797972Set 9
2018-11-1510p5,667w
punishment.4 unusual punishment. See People v. Nichols. 176 Cal.
App. 4th 428, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 702, 706 (Cal. Ct. App.
In Solem, the defendant was sentenced to life ... nonviolent and his sentence was excessively long, 127 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 365, 369 (Cal.
Solem should apply. However, as noted above
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00797972.pdf
EFTA00805367Set 9
2018-03-0822p7,118w
government, despite confidentiality agreement); McKesson HBOC,
Inc. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 812, 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (rejecting selective waiver of
attorney-client privilege and work-product
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00805367.pdf
EFTA01138929Set 9
2007-01-0633p8,537w
Third Edition 2012 ("In Brennan v.
Tremco, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 310, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 790, 20 P. 3d 1086 (2001), the
Supreme Court addressed the question of whether
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01138929.pdf