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

Background

The defendants sought a stay—an order temporarily pausing enforcement—of a judgment entered for the plaintiffs in April 2020 after a jury trial and post-trial proceedings. They were appealing the court’s December 2023 order denying their request for relief from that judgment under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants argued that previously posted bond amounts totaling $700,000 were sufficient for the appeal and that no new bond should be required. They alternatively offered to post a new $20,000 bond. They also asked the court to require plaintiffs’ counsel to keep $600,000 that the surety had already paid into counsel’s trust account.

The plaintiffs argued that any new stay should require a bond of at least $2,104,511.16, representing 120 percent of the defendants’ outstanding liability. The court stated that $1,753,759.30 in damages and interest remained outstanding. The original $600,000 bond had covered less than one-third of the judgment and had already been disbursed.

Reasoning

The court applied five factors used to decide whether to waive the usual requirement that an appeal bond fully secure a judgment: the complexity of collection, the time needed to collect after an affirmance, confidence that funds would be available, whether the defendant’s ability to pay made a bond unnecessary, and whether a bond would harm other creditors.

The court found that these factors favored the plaintiffs. It cited the defendants’ refusal to engage with plaintiffs’ counsel about satisfying the judgment, the defendants’ failure to provide evidence of their ability to pay or propose another way to secure the judgment, and the absence of information about the defendants’ creditors. The court also considered the delays the plaintiffs had already faced while the defendants pursued appellate procedures. The court noted that few additional litigation expenses were expected beyond appellate briefing and limited motion practice.

Ruling

Judge William H. Orrick denied the defendants’ request for an unsecured stay under Rule 62(d). He also denied their request to require plaintiffs’ counsel to maintain the released $600,000 in the trust account.

The court ordered that, to stay enforcement of the judgment, the defendants must post a new $600,000 bond within 14 days after entry of the order. The court described that amount as reasonable under the circumstances, while recognizing that it would secure only about one-third of the outstanding damages and interest. If the defendants did not post the bond by the deadline, the plaintiffs could proceed with all available methods of enforcing the judgment.