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

Background

The court previously entered a $2,425,084 judgment against the defendants. To pause enforcement while the defendants appealed, the court initially required a $600,000 supersedeas bond, meaning security posted to protect the prevailing party while enforcement is stayed during an appeal. The court later awarded the plaintiffs $12,782,891.25 in attorney fees and $998,119.17 in non-statutory costs.

After setting the fee and cost award, the court increased the required bond by $100,000 rather than granting the plaintiffs' request for a $3 million bond. The Ninth Circuit later issued its mandate concerning the judgment. The defendants then sought relief from the judgment under Rule 60, but the court denied that motion. The court also required a new $600,000 bond to stay enforcement while the defendants appealed the denial of Rule 60 relief.

Motion and arguments

The plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the $100,000 bond securing part of the fee-and-costs award. They argued that the balance of factors had changed because the judgment had been affirmed by the Ninth Circuit except for Wiretap Act claims involving $90,000 in damages, the Supreme Court had denied review petitions, and the court had denied relief under Rule 60. They also argued that the defendants might not voluntarily pay and that the defendants' finances and fundraising history supported requiring additional security.

Only defendants Daleiden, Center for Medical Progress, BioMax, and Lopez responded. The opinion states that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for the judgment and related fee and cost awards, while Rhomberg, Newman, and Merritt did not respond. The court noted that information about those three defendants' ability to satisfy the awards remained unaddressed.

Ruling

Judge William H. Orrick concluded that an increased amount of security was required. Applying the factors he had previously considered, and considering that the judgment had been tested on appeal and remained fundamentally intact, he declined to require either the full amount of the unsecured fee-and-cost award or the one-third amount requested by the plaintiffs.

The court ordered the defendants to post an additional $1.1 million bond. This increased the total security for the 2021 attorney-fee-and-cost award to $1.2 million. The court stated that the amount would secure only the costs awarded to the plaintiffs plus interest accruing since January 2021, and would be less than 10% of the fee-and-cost award.

The defendants must post half of the revised amount—$550,000—within 30 days of the order and the remaining $550,000 within 90 days. If either payment is not posted on time, the plaintiffs may seek to enforce the 2021 attorney-fee-and-cost award without further order from the court.