National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress

BACKGROUND

14 Since the inception of this case, defendants have been enjoined from publishing or 15 disclosing materials, including recordings, they surreptitiously secured during the National 16 Abortion Federation (“NAF”) meetings in 2014 and 2015. See Dkt. No. 15 (Temporary 17 Restraining Order), 27 (Order maintaining TRO), 354 (Preliminary Injunction). In October 2015, 18 defendants notified the court and plaintiff NAF that defendant David Daleiden had received a 19 Congressional subpoena asking him to produce to Congress any information secured from the 20 NAF 2014 and 2015 meetings related to the “acquisition, preparation, and sale” of fetal tissue. 21 Dkt. No. 152-1. That information was covered by the TRO. After hearing from defendants and 22 NAF regarding the Congressional subpoena, I concluded that I did not have a legal or factual basis 23 to prevent Daleiden from voluntarily responding to the facially valid Congressional subpoena. 24 Dkt. No. 155. I made clear, however, that defendants were only authorized to produce the footage, 25 documents or communications that had been specifically requested by the subpoena, and nothing more. Id. at 3.1 27 In…