Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress

Background

After a jury trial and post-trial proceedings, the court entered a judgment in April 2020 against identified defendants and in favor of identified Planned Parenthood entities. The judgment included damages, punitive damages, and a permanent injunction. The jury found liability under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Federal Wiretap Act, breach of contract, trespass, fraud, and California, Florida, and Maryland recording statutes.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed much of the judgment, including compensatory damages that reimbursed Planned Parenthood entities for losses caused by violations of generally applicable laws, punitive damages, and the injunction. It reversed the Federal Wiretap Act verdict and vacated related statutory damages. The Supreme Court later denied defendants’ petitions for review.

Defendants then sought relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and (6). Rule 60(b)(6) allows relief from a final judgment in extraordinary circumstances, while Rule 60(b)(5) can allow relief when enforcing a judgment prospectively is no longer equitable. Defendants relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Project Veritas v. Schmidt, which held that Oregon’s recording statute violated the First Amendment because its content-based exceptions could not survive constitutional review.

Rule 60(b)(6) analysis

Defendants argued that Project Veritas significantly changed the law and undermined the jury’s findings under the California, Florida, and Maryland recording statutes. The court rejected that argument for several reasons.

First, defendants had not argued before or during the appeal that those state statutes were unconstitutional because of content-based exceptions. The court concluded that defendants could have made those arguments earlier and had chosen not to do so. A later legal development does not ordinarily provide extraordinary grounds for reopening a judgment when the relevant argument was previously available.

Second, the court found that Project Veritas applied, rather than extended, existing Ninth Circuit precedent. The Oregon statute differed significantly from the California, Florida, and Maryland statutes because Oregon’s law broadly prohibited certain recordings, including recordings in public places where people lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court stated that the other three statutes were narrower and applied to unconsented recordings where individuals had reasonable expectations of privacy. Defendants had not shown that Project Veritas made those statutes unconstitutional or produced a significant change in controlling law.

The court also rejected defendants’ argument that Project Veritas established that the First Amendment barred compensatory or punitive damages caused by recording conduct. According to the court, Project Veritas did not address that damages issue. The Ninth Circuit had already determined that the compensatory damages at issue were supported by losses resulting from generally applicable laws, including trespass, fraud, and breach of contract. The court further stated that the challenged relief was supported by the non-recording claims and that only $60,000 of the damages discussed in this section was solely attributable to the state recording claims.

The court considered the remaining Rule 60(b)(6) factors as well. It found that defendants had not shown sufficient diligence because they could have raised their constitutional arguments earlier. The plaintiffs had a significant interest in receiving the damages and retaining the injunction, which had been in place since judgment. The court treated the delay factor as, at most, neutral and found that any connection between Project Veritas and the original judgment was marginal. The court concluded that Rule 60(b)(6) relief was not warranted and denied that part of the motion.

Rule 60(b)(5) analysis

Defendants separately sought relief from the injunction under Rule 60(b)(5). The court denied that request for the same reasons: Project Veritas did not create a significant change in settled law, and the plaintiffs had an important interest in the finality of the judgment and the continued injunction.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for relief from the judgment. It lifted the stay on enforcement of the judgment and on distribution of the bond, allowing enforcement and bond disbursement to proceed.