Full text
CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05787-SI
THE POYNTER INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA
STUDIES, INC.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FURTHER
SUPPLEMENT ITS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND FOR IN CAMERA
INSPECTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JASSY VICK CAROLAN LLP
KEVIN L. VICK (SBN 220738)
kvick@jassyvick.com
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310) 870-7048
Facsimile: (310) 870-7010
Attorneys for Defendant The Poynter
Institute for Media Studies, Inc.
THOMAS & LOCICERO PL
CAROL JEAN LOCICERO (pro hac vice)
clocicero@tlolawfirm.com
MARK R. CARAMANICA (pro hac vice)
mcaramanica@tlolawfirm.com
601 South Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 984-3060
Facsimile: (813) 984-3070
-and-
DANIELA B. ABRATT (pro hac vice)
dabratt@tlolawfirm.com
915 Middle River Drive, Suite 309
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304
Telephone: (954) 703-3416
Facsimile: (954) 400-5415
Attorneys for Defendant The Poynter
Institute for Media Studies, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE, a Georgia non-
profit organization,
Plaintiff,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation; MARK
ZUCKERBERG, a California resident; SCIENCE
FEEDBACK, a French corporation; THE POYNTER
INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA STUDIES, INC., a
Florida corporation; and DOES 1-20.
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:20-cv-05787-SI
DEFENDANT THE POYNTER
INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA STUDIES,
INC.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
FURTHER SUPPLEMENT ITS
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND FOR IN CAMERA INSPECTION
Case 3:20-cv-05787-SI Document 105 Filed 06/21/21 Page 1 of 5
- i -
CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05787-SI
THE POYNTER INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA
STUDIES, INC.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FURTHER
SUPPLEMENT ITS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND FOR IN CAMERA
INSPECTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................................................ 1
Armstrong v. Scribner, No. 06cv852 L(RBB), 2008 WL 268974 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2008) ............... 1
Beezley v. Fremont Indem. Co., 804 F.2d 530 (9th Cir. 1986) ............................................................. 1
Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................... 1
Case 3:20-cv-05787-SI Document 105 Filed 06/21/21 Page 2 of 5
- 1 -
CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05787-SI
THE POYNTER INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA
STUDIES, INC.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FURTHER
SUPPLEMENT ITS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, Inc. (“Poynter”) hereby files this
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Further Supplement its Second Amended Complaint
and for In Camera Inspection (Dkt. No. 103, the “Motion”), filed on June 7, 2021.
This is Plaintiff’s second attempt to supplement its Second Amended Complaint since the
parties filed their motions to dismiss the SAC (see Dkt. 76), and the fifth overall time it has sought
to modify its complaint since its original filing in August of 2020. Plaintiff’s latest attempt to move
the goalposts, this time after the parties’ motions to dismiss have been fully submitted and oral
argument was had, should not be permitted.
As to this latest filing, the proposed additional allegations and request to review unredacted
copies of emails between Dr. Anthony Fauci and Mr. Zuckerberg change nothing with respect to
the claims made against Poynter. They simply are not directed toward any alleged Poynter activity,
nor do they in any way implicate Poynter or the third-party fact checking process that Plaintiff
complains of in this case. Therefore, once again, permitting the supplement as to Poynter would be
futile. See Beezley v. Fremont Indem. Co., 804 F.2d 530, 530-31 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming denial
of motion to supplement complaint where plaintiff failed to allege any new facts that would entitle
him to relief); Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) (“When a proposed
amendment would be futile, there is no need to prolong the litigation by permitting further
amendment.”) (internal quotation omitted); Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373-74 (9th
Cir. 1990) (“The district court's discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where
plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.”); Armstrong v. Scribner, No. 06cv852 L(RBB),
2008 WL 268974, at *26 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2008) (“The Court may deny a motion to file
supplemental pleadings when supplementation would be futile, such as where the newly-asserted
claims would not survive a motion to dismiss.”).
More broadly, the proposed supplemental allegations and requests for in camera inspection
have no relevance to any of the claims in this litigation against any of the defendants. Facebook
and Mr. Zuckerberg have addressed this more fully in their opposition to the Motion (see Dkt. No.
Case 3:20-cv-05787-SI Document 105 Filed 06/21/21 Page 3 of 5
- 2 -
CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05787-SI
THE POYNTER INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA
STUDIES, INC.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FURTHER
SUPPLEMENT ITS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
104). Poynter hereby adopts and incorporates the arguments set forth in that opposition as if fully
stated herein.
CHD’s continual gamesmanship of filing request after request to supplement its pleadings
and take judicial notice of irrelevant court decisions (see, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 97, 102), all in an effort to
delay adjudication of the parties’ pending motions to dismiss, must end here. CHD has been afforded
every opportunity to fully plead its case, including amending its complaint after reviewing the legal
arguments raised by the parties in the motions to dismiss the original complaint. Poynter (and all
defendants) should not have to incur constant, additional expense responding to CHD’s repetitive
attempts to inject even more irrelevant matters into this case.
For the foregoing reasons, Poynter respectfully requests that the Motion be denied, or, if
granted, that CHD’s Second Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice because the
supplemental allegations fail to cure the fatal defects that are the subject of the pending motions to
dismiss.
Dated: June 21, 2021
JASSY VICK CAROLAN LLP
By: /s/ Kevin L. Vick
KEVIN L. VICK
THOMAS & LOCICERO PL
By: /s/ Carol Jean LoCicero
CAROL JEAN LOCICERO
Attorneys for Defendant, The Poynter Institute
for Media Studies, Inc.
Case 3:20-cv-05787-SI Document 105 Filed 06/21/21 Page 4 of 5
- 3 -
CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05787-SI
THE POYNTER INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA
STUDIES, INC.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FURTHER
SUPPLEMENT ITS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
I am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file the foregoing.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), I hereby attest that the other signatures have concurred in this
filing.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 21, 2021, I electronically filed the above document with the
Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send electronic notification of such filing to all
registered counsel.
Dated: June 21, 2021
By:
/s/ Kevin L. Vick
Kevin L. Vick
Dated: June 21, 2021
By:
/s/ Kevin L. Vick
Kevin L. Vick
Case 3:20-cv-05787-SI Document 105 Filed 06/21/21 Page 5 of 5