Daily Journal story on trial resulting in new anti-SLAPP case law

Plaintiff prevails in case that made new anti-SLAPP law

by Justin Kloczko, Daily Journal Staff Writer

It was a fairly typical breach of fiduciary duty case in Los Angeles Superior Court that resulted in a $3.5 million jury verdict recently, but only after it made news case law regarding the anti-SLAPP statute used to knock down frivolous lawsuits seeking to chill speech.

In Baral v. Schnitt, the state high court resolved a long-running dispute among appellate courts about how to treat mixed causes of action that contained protected and unprotected activity.

At issue in the Baral case was a fraud audit report his attorney, Gerald Sauer of Sauer & Wagner LLP, wanted to come to light, but it was deemed SLAPP-able on remand by the the 2nd District Court of Appeal.

“Just because it was slapped and was not the basis for liability, it was still admissible as evidence to show why Baral did certain things,” said Sauer. “I didn’t believe the fraud report should have been cloaked in the litigation privilege.”

“The state Supreme Court needed to look in the trenches in terms of the impact of the ruling,” Sauer said. “This should have been part of the traditional motion to strike, and it should have been changed by the Legislature.”

Read full story on DailyJournal.com (subscription required)

New bill will prevent defamation claims in sexual harassment cases: Sonya Goodwin’s article in Hunton

California’s AB 2770 Protects Employers and Victims of Sexual Harassment from Defamation Claims

By Sonya Goodwin & C. Randolph Sullivan on November 1, 2018

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, many state legislatures have begun to take action to provide greater protections for victims of sexual harassment and make it easier for them to make complaints in the workplace.  For example, in California, AB 2770 amends Civil Code Section 47 to protect alleged victims of sexual harassment by a co-worker in making complaints to the employer without the fear of being found liable for defaming the alleged harasser.  It similarly protects employers when making statements to interested parties (such as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and/or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) concerning the complaints of sexual harassment.  In both instances, however, the statements and/or complaints are only protected from liability for defamation if they are made without malice and based upon credible evidence.

Under existing law, current or former employers are protected from liability for defamation when making any statement concerning the job performance or qualifications of a person who has applied for employment elsewhere, at the request of a prospective employer or the applicant, as long as those statements are made without malice and based upon credible evidence.  Existing law also allows a current or former employer to answer whether or not it would rehire the applicant without the risk of being held liable for defamation of the applicant.

Read the rest at Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

Gerald Sauer’s article in WIRED makes the magazine’s “Most Read” list

Gerald Sauer’s article in WIRED, “A Murder Case Tests Alexa’s Devotion to Your Privacy,” made the magazine’s list of 12 Most-Read Opinion Pieces of 2017:

As WIRED editors have explained at length, devices like Amazon’s Echo and Google Home series listen to our conversations, eagerly awaiting a “wake” word to command them to turn on some Miriam Makeba or calculate how many tablespoons are in a cup (16). But, as civil attorney Gerald Sauer explained in a February piece, smart home devices’ microphones can also effectively collect evidence that can be used against their owners in court.

Read more at WIRED

Digital assistants and privacy: Gerald Sauer’s article in The Star

Alexa, how much is my privacy worth?

by Gerald Sauer

Amazon’s personal digital assistant, Alexa, has been credited twice in recent weeks with helping to solve or avert crimes – including a Gloucester case that received international attention when the device is said to have recorded the voice of a young boy who broke into an apartment. 

As novel as these cases are, they raise unsettling questions about how much privacy we forfeit – willingly – to technology. 

The Star Online

1 8 9 10 11