A veterans’ group challenged an anti‑robocall statute, Ind. Code 24‑5‑14‑5, under the First Amendment. The law prohibits automated calls with recorded messages unless the recipient has previously consented or the message is immediately preceded by a live operator who obtains consent. The Seventh Circuit upheld the law, noting that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, which contains similar restrictions, has been sustained by the Ninth and Eighth Circuits. The court rejected a claim of content-based discrimination. While the law exempts messages from school districts to students, parents, or employees; messages to recipients with whom the caller has a current business or personal relationship; messages advising employees of work schedules, nothing in the law, including those exceptions, disfavors political speech. The exceptions primarily concern who may be called, not what may be said. The court noted the legitimate purposes of the law. View "Patriotic Veterans, Inc. v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law

This case arose out of the re-publication and electronic distribution of an outdated newspaper article concerning Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc. dba Sovereign Health of California (Sovereign) and one of the treatment centers it operates. Following the re-publication, which occurred in an electronic newsletter edited and published by Leonard Buschel, Sovereign sued Buschel and a nonprofit he founded, Writers in Treatment, Inc. (Writers), seeking injunctive relief and damages for alleged harm caused by supposed false statements made in the newsletter. Buschel and Writers filed a special motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute). The trial court denied the motion; Buschel and Writers appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying the motion because Sovereign’s claims did not arise from activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. View "Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center v. Buschel" on Justia Law

Relators filed this original action in mandamus seeking the release of video from a camera worn by an officer who shot a motorist after a traffic stop. Relators asserted that Respondent, the prosecuting attorney, violated the Public Records Act by failing either to make the body-camera video available for inspection and copying or to prove that it was exempt from disclosure. The prosecutor released the video two days after the complaint was filed. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of mandamus as to certain relators because the relators failed to request the record from the prosecutor’s office and denied the writ as to other relators because the body-camera video had already been produced. Because the video was produced within a reasonable amount of time, the request for statutory damages and attorney fees was also denied. View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters" on Justia Law

During their acrimonious divorce, Paula accused Barry of serial infidelity. In discovery Barry asked her for all documents related to that accusation. Paula complied and produced copies of incriminating emails between Barry and several other women. In a separate lawsuit, Barry alleged that Paula violated the federal Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, 18 U.S.C. 2520, by surreptitiously placing an auto-forwarding “rule” on his email accounts that automatically forwarded the messages on his email client to her and that Paula’s lawyer violated the Act by “disclosing” the intercepted emails in response to his discovery request. The district judge dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed that Paula’s lawyer cannot be liable for disclosing Barry’s own emails to him in response to his own discovery request. The allegations against Paula, however, technically fall within the language of the Act, “though Congress probably didn’t anticipate its use as a tactical weapon in a divorce proceeding.” The emails attached to the complaint did not conclusively defeat Barry’s allegation that Paula intercepted his emails contemporaneously with their transmission, as required by the Act. View "Epstein v. Epstein" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a 51-year-old African- and Latino-American, began working for CNN in 1996 and became a producer in 2000. In 2004, Janos became plaintiff‘s supervisor. Plaintiff received no further promotions. The final opening for which plaintiff applied was offered to a younger, Caucasian candidate with less experience. Plaintiff alleges that he repeatedly complained about CNN‘s failure to promote African-American men. In 2005 plaintiff made a written complaint to Janos. Allegedly in retaliation, Janos issued Plaintiff a “Written Warning Regarding Performance.” In 2010 plaintiff‘s wife began fertility treatments paid for by CNN-provided health insurance; plaintiff claims that the infertility constituted a disability under Government Code 12926(k). Plaintiff‘s wife had twins in 2013. Plaintiff took five weeks of paternity leave. Plaintiff alleges that upon plaintiff‘s return to work, Janos gave high-profile assignments to a younger Caucasian man with less experience than plaintiff. In 2014, plaintiff submitted a story to an editor, who expressed concern about similarity to another report. The editor informed Janos, who, without talking to plaintiff, decided not to publish the story. Janos initiated an audit of plaintiff‘s work and ultimately fired plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and defamation. Defendants filed a special motion to strike all causes of action (Code of Civil Procedure, 425.16, anti-SLAPP motion), submitting evidence of plagiarism in plaintiff’s story. The court of appeal reversed the trial court’s grant of the anti-SLAPP motion. This is a private employment discrimination and retaliation case, not an action to prevent defendants from exercising their First Amendment rights. Defendants may have a legitimate defense but the merits of that defense should be resolved through the normal litigation process, not at the initial phase of this action. View "Wilson v. Cable News Network Inc." on Justia Law

In 2014, a Norman restaurant's surveillance video captured an incident depicting Joe Mixon striking a woman. The Norman Police Department (Department) was called to the location, investigated, and obtained and reviewed the surveillance video. On Friday, August 15, 2014, a Department detective filed an affidavit of probable cause seeking an arrest warrant for Mixon. The detective stated probable cause existed based on interviews completed by other officers, injuries sustained by the victim, and the surveillance video of the incident which he described in detail. The same day, the Cleveland County District Attorney filed a criminal information, referencing the same incident number as the probable cause affidavit and alleging that Mixon committed the misdemeanor crime of Acts Resulting in Gross Injury when he struck the female. Mixon voluntarily appeared in district court to answer the charge and was arraigned. At the same time, the district court ordered Mixon to be processed by the Cleveland County Sheriff's Department and to remain in custody pending his posting a bond. KWTV News 9, a member of the Oklahoma Association of Broadcasters (Association), requested a copy of the surveillance video from Department and District Attorney, referencing the Open Records Act. The Norman City Attorney emailed KWTV News 9 that, barring changes, such as the judge ordering the video sealed, he did "not know of a reason why [Department] would not be willing to make copies of the Mixon video available for public inspection and copying after November 1." Without furnishing copies of the video, the Department allowed KWTV News 9 and other media to view the video. Association was not present at this viewing. Mixon entered an Alford Plea to the criminal charge. The same day, Association made a request under the Act for a copy of the surveillance video from the City and the Department and KWTV News 9 renewed its request. District Attorney responded, informing Association that it no longer had the video as it had given the video to the victim. City told KWTV News 9 that Department had delivered a copy of the video to the City Attorney, who placed it in a litigation file. The Association filed petition for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and mandamus. Defendants filed motions to dismiss. The district court granted the motion. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the proceedings. The Supreme Court concluded that the Association was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and entitled to a writ of mandamus. The video was ordered to be a part of the court record and preserved by the attorneys. The Defendants had to allow the Association a copy of the surveillance video. View "Oklahoma Assoc. of Broadcasters, Inc. v. City of Norman" on Justia Law

The Cincinnati Enquirer requested the disclosure of recordings from cameras mounted on the dashboards of two Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP) cars. The OSHP denied the request in its entirety. The Enquirer subsequently filed this mandamus action alleging that the OSHP and Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS) violated the Ohio Public Records Act by refusing to release the recordings. Thereafter, ODPS provided copies of the recordings to the Enquirer. The Supreme Court held (1) subject to redaction, the Enquirer had a clear legal right to the requested records and that the defendants had a clear legal duty to provide the records; and (2) the Enquirer was not entitled to attorney fees, statutory damages, or court costs. View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

This case arose out of statements made to a call-in radio show by Steve Murdock about his neighbor Candace Elliott. The show’s hosts were discussing a Bonneville County case that involved allegations of horse abuse and neglect. Elliott called in to comment. Several callers later, Murdock called in, questioning the veracity of Elliott’s statements, and making various claims about the horse meat market and (referring to Elliott) “Andi’s humane society.” Elliott filed suit, alleging that seven of Murdock’s statements defamed her individually and her foundation, For The Love Of Pets, Inc. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Murdock. Elliott appealed, limiting her appeal to the statement, “Andi’s humane society puts .02% of the money they hit everybody up [sic] back into the care of animals,” which she alleged defames both her and her foundation. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the trial court's judgment in favor of Murdock, and affirmed in all respects. View "Elliott v. Murdock" on Justia Law

Mazzaferro, a “vexatious litigant,” was replaced as trustee of a living trust. Mazzaferro’s son-in-law, Parisi, the conservator for the trust beneficiary, a dependent adult, alleged financial abuse and fraud by Mazzaferro. Parisi sought protection for himself and his wife and three adult children from a campaign of harassment by Mazzaferro, citing 21 litigation matters, all of which were resolved in Parisi‘s favor. Parisi noted Mazzaferro‘s harassment of Parisi‘s daughter at her workplace and by contacting her employer. Mazzaferro also wrote letters accusing Parisi of criminal activity and attempting to have Parisi, a probation officer, fired. Mazzaferro admitted writing the letters at issue, but insisted their contents were true, and denied that the incidents involving his granddaughter occurred. The judge made credibility findings, telling Mazzaferro, “I do not believe you,” and issued the requested restraining order. In the meantime, in separate proceedings, Mazzaferro unsuccessfully sought an elder abuse restraining order against Parisi; Mazzaferro was ordered to pay Parisi‘s attorney fees. Mazzaferro‘s application for permission, as a vexatious litigant, to appeal the restraining order was granted on July 24, 2015.9. Rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and allegations of prior restraint, the court of appeal remanded to the trial court for a more precise definition of the prohibited conduct. View "Parisi v. Mazzaferro" on Justia Law

In this case, the court addresses the fees that local exchange carriers (LECs) can charge inter-exchange carriers (IXCs) for certain services they provide, in coordination with providers of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), for the completion of “inter-exchange” calls. The FCC concluded that the disputed services are end-office switching services. Petitioner AT&T says that they are tandem switching services. In 2011, the Commission made a broad effort to update its system for regulating intercarrier compensation (the Transformation Order). The Commission, in In re Connect America Fund, ruled that the disputed services are indeed end-office access under subsection (3) of 47 C.F.R. 51.903(d). AT&T challenges the Declaratory Ruling. The court found that the Declaratory Ruling does not disclose the Commission’s reasoning with the requisite clarity to enable it to sustain such a conclusion. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded the order to the Commission for further explanation. The court need not reach AT&T's second challenge. View "AT&T Corp. v. FCC" on Justia Law