Maddow

Herring Networks, INC v. Maddow

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaFebruary 5, 20213:19-cv-01713California7,449 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

22 Plaintiff Herring Networks, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for defamation 23 against Defendants Rachel Maddow, Comcast Corporation, NBCUniversal Media, LLC, 24 and MSNBC Cable LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s claim 25 stemmed from a statement Rachel Maddow made on The Rachel Maddow Show on 26 MSNBC. Id. Soon after Plaintiff filed suit, Defendants filed a special motion to strike 27 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, commonly known as the Anti- 28 Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“anti-SLAPP”) law. ECF No. 18. After special motion to strike. ECF No. 30 at 16. Because the Court granted the anti-SLAPP motion, Defendants were permitted to file a motion for attorney fees and costs. Id. (citing CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.16(c)(1)). After Defendants filed their motion for attorney fees and costs (ECF No. 35), the Court set a briefing schedule. ECF No. 36. Plaintiff timely filed its opposition brief, and Defendants timely filed their reply brief. ECF Nos. 37, 38. Plaintiff also filed objections to evidence submitted in Defendants’ motion and reply brief. ECF Nos.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.