{"id":3416,"date":"2008-07-08T16:58:19","date_gmt":"2008-07-09T00:58:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=3416"},"modified":"2008-07-08T16:58:19","modified_gmt":"2008-07-09T00:58:19","slug":"tendler-v-wwwjewishsurvivorsblogspotcom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=3416","title":{"rendered":"Tendler v. www.jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Tendler v. www.jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com <\/strong>
\n Court errs in granting defendants’ motion to strike complaint where plaintiff’s request for subpoenas falls outside anti-SLAPP statute. <\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/spacer><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Case #<\/u>: <\/font><\/td>\nH031130<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Citation<\/u>: <\/font><\/td>\n2008 DJDAR 10352<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
File Date<\/u>:<\/font><\/td>\nJuly 7, 08<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Court<\/u>:<\/font><\/td>\nCalifornia Courts of Appeal – 6th District<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
  Opinion by Justice Mihara."> <\/a><\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/spacer><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/spacer><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DAILY JOURNAL SUMMARY <\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/spacer><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mordecai Tendler obtained a pre-filing discovery order in Ohio to learn the identities of anonymous individuals (Does) who posted allegedly defamatory statements about him on the Internet. His attorney issued subpoenas to Google seeking the originating internet protocol addresses for www.jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com and others. When Google refused to comply with the Ohio subpoenas, Tendler filed a request in Santa Clara County asking the court to issue a case number and endorse the four subpoenas. The Does moved to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16. Tendler later withdrew his request for subpoenas premised on the Ohio discovery order. The superior court nevertheless granted the Does’ Section 425.16 motion to strike. Reversed and remanded. Section 425.16 subjects a cause of action arising from any act in furtherance of the person’s free speech right to a special motion to strike. However, even the broadest interpretation of the statute did not cover a request for subpoenas. Tendler’s request was neither a complaint, cross-complaint, petition, or any equivalent pleading. It did not contain any causes of action or serve to initiate a judicial proceeding. Instead, Tendler filed a "civil case cover sheet" and asked the court to endorse the subpoenas. This was insufficient to initiate a lawsuit in California. The absence of a complaint, petition, or similar pleading established Tendler did not file a cause of action. Section 425.17 did not apply to his request for subpoenas. The superior court thus erred in granting the Does’ motion to strike the complaint. Opinion by Justice Mihara<\/em>.<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
  <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/spacer><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
ORDER AND OPINION <\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/spacer><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n <\/p>\n