Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress
- William Orrick
- 3:16-cv-00236
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Planned Parenthood v. Center for Medical Progress, Judge Orrick granted in part a motion, increasing the appeal bond to $700,000.
The plaintiffs’ ability to secure payment of the judgment, attorney-fee award, and costs, and the defendants’ obligation to post a bond while appealing, were affected.
What happened
Planned Parenthood Federation of America and other plaintiffs asked the court to increase the bond defendants had to post while appealing a $2,425,084 judgment. The existing bond was $600,000, and the plaintiffs also had received awards of $12,782,891.25 in attorney fees and $998,119.17 in costs.
Some defendants opposed any increase. They argued that the request improperly sought reconsideration, that the original bond had considered possible attorney fees, and that a higher bond could force them into bankruptcy. The court determined that the original bond did not cover an appeal from the attorney-fee award, and that defendants’ financial circumstances had not materially changed.
Judge William H. Orrick granted the plaintiffs’ motion in part. He ordered defendants to increase the bond by $100,000, for a total of $700,000, within 14 days. Enforcement of all parts of the judgment remained paused until that deadline.
The detailed version
- Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress · No. 3:16-cv-00236
- William Orrick
- Feb. 19, 2021
Background
In June 2020, the court required defendants to post a $600,000 supersedeas bond—an appeal bond that pauses enforcement of a judgment—to stay execution of the plaintiffs’ $2,425,084 judgment while the defendants appealed. In January 2021, the court awarded the plaintiffs $12,782,891.25 in attorney fees and $998,119.17 in non-statutory costs.
The plaintiffs moved to increase the bond from $600,000 to $3,000,000. A subset of defendants—Daleiden, CMP, BioMax, and Lopez—opposed any increase. They argued that the motion was an improper and unsupported request for reconsideration, that supersedeas bonds generally cover potential or actual fee awards, that the prior bond already accounted for possible attorney fees, and that the proposed increase exceeded what the opposing defendants could pay.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that its earlier bond order had required a bond covering all compensatory damages and part of the other damages, but had not covered a possible later award of attorney fees or costs. Because the attorney-fee award had since been entered, the court concluded that a request for permission to seek reconsideration was not required and that the reconsideration standard was irrelevant.
The court also considered the defendants’ finances. Their circumstances had not materially changed since the earlier bond decision, although they had obtained enough contributions from funders to post the $600,000 bond. Evidence concerning CMP’s apparent income and expenses showed that those resources paid for Daleiden’s salary and attorney fees for Daleiden and CMP’s ongoing litigation. The court found that a $100,000 increase would protect the plaintiffs’ interests without causing defendants undue hardship.
Ruling
Judge William H. Orrick granted the plaintiffs’ motion in part. He ordered a revised bond of $700,000, or a supplemental bond covering the $100,000 increase, to be posted within 14 days after entry of the order. Execution of all portions of the judgment was stayed until that time. The order did not require the requested $3,000,000 bond.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.