2015-09-24 (MTD and Motion To Strike) Hearing Transcript

1
Pages 1 - 63
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Before The Honorable Vince Chhabria, Judge
ADP, LLC, a Delaware limited

liability company,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
YOURPEOPLE, INC., a Delaware
)
corporation d.b.a Zenefits
)
Insurance Services, and
)
PARKER CONRAD, an individual, )
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________)
14
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE OFFICIAL

ELECTRONIC SOUND RECORDING - FTR 10:12-11:34
15
16
APPEARANCES:
17
For Plaintiff:
18
20
BY:
Bingham McCutchen LLP

Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
ROBERT ARTHUR LEWIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW
BY:
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

One Market Street, Spear Street Tower
KRISTEN A. PALUMBO, ATTORNEY AT LAW
21
22
23
15-cv-02560-VC
San Francisco, California

Thursday, September 24, 2015
13
19
Case No.
24
Transcribed by Kelly Polvi, Contract Transcriber, utilizing

court reporting and transcription hardware and software.
25
APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE

Kelly Lee Polvi, CSR, RMR, FCRR - 503.779.7406 - kpolvi@comcast.net
APPEARANCES (Continued):
For Defendants:
3
4
5
BY:
6
7
8
BY:
9
10
11
12
BY:
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

405 Howard Street
ANNETTE L. HURST, ATTORNEY AT LAW

1152 15th St. NW
Washington, DC 20005
JEREMY PETERMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
(Pro Hac Vice)

1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
SCOTT LONARDO, ATTORNEY AT LAW
13
14
15
16
17
ALSO PRESENT:
David Kwon, General Counsel, ADP

Hillary Smith, General Counsel, Zenefits
Josh Stein, VP of Litigation, Zenefits
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2015
P R O C E E D I N G S
---000---
4
5
THE CLERK:
10:12 A.M.
Calling civil case No. 15-2560, ADP, LLC,
versus YourPeople, Incorporated.
Counsels, please step forward and state your appearances.
THE COURT:
Before you make your appearance, I just
wanted to say to the lawyers who are here on the Keurig case,
we're planning to call you last and we have two more hearings
10
before you and I expect those two hearings will take a while.
11
So if you want to go wander the halls or be productive or
12
something like that, you're free to leave and come back at
13
about 11:30.
14
hearings until then.
15
16
I don't expect to finish up with the next two
I just didn't want to totally waste your time, if you

prefer to do something else.
17
MR. LEWIS:
Robert Lewis on behalf of Plaintiff ADP.
18
THE COURT:
Good morning.
19
MS. HURST:
Good morning, Your Honor.
20
21
22
Annette Hurst on
behalf of defendants Zenefits and Parker Conrad.

And also, Your Honor, my colleagues with me today are
Scott Lonardo and Jeremy Peterman.
23
THE COURT:
Good morning.
24
MS. HURST:
And, Your Honor, the general counsel,
25
Hillary Smith, and vice president of litigation, Josh Stein, of

Zenefits, are also here, present, this morning.
Thank you.
THE COURT:
Thank you.
MR. LEWIS:
My introductions were incomplete.
Kristen Palumbo's here with me.
THE COURT:
Good morning.
MR. LEWIS:
And also, in the back of the room, is an
8
9
attorney from ADP, David Kwon.

THE COURT:
Okay.
10
So I guess, Ms. Hurst, maybe I want to start with you.
11
MS. HURST:
Thank you, Your Honor.
12
THE COURT:
And I think the primary question in this case
13
is whether the lawsuit will die a slow death or a fast death.
14
And let me explain what I mean by that.
15
Reviewing the motion to strike and looking at the
16
evidence that is submitted in connection with the motion to
17
strike, it seems clear to me that ADP has no claim for
18
defamation.
19
And in particular, I'm focusing on the fact that there is
20
evidence that two or three days after all of this went down ADP
21
is foisting a product on Zenefits' customers, Zenefits'
22
clients, and saying, "This product that we're offering you
23
competes with Zenefits', and it's a lot easier to just use us."
24
To me, to the extent that on a 12(b)(6) standard the
25
complaint could be read to state a claim -- I'm not sure it

can -- but to the extent it could, it strikes me that that
evidence, that email, goes a long way towards blowing ADP's
defamation claim out of the water.
So I do want to discuss whether, just reviewing the claim
on the 12(b)(6) standard, there's enough to state a claim.
There may not be, and maybe the case dies a fast death.
But the reason why I think it's at least possible that it
could die a slow death is that I don't think you can win your
anti-SLAPP motion because I think the commercial speech
10
11
exception probably applies.

And that creates this kind of procedural quandary for us;
12
right?
13
connection with the anti-SLAPP motion, which can be considered
14
in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion, that has led me to
15
conclude that ADP has likely filed a defamation lawsuit that
16
has no merit whatsoever.
17
Which is, I've looked at evidence submitted in
But if I'm right about the commercial speech exception
18
and I'm right that I have to deny your anti-SLAPP motion I
19
think I cannot -- I have to sort of erase that evidence that
20
you've submitted from my mind when I consider your motion to
21
dismiss on 12(b)(6) grounds.
22
That's a difficult thing to do.
It also may create a
23
Rule 11 problem for ADP's lawyers for pursuing a lawsuit which
24
the evidence indicates they have no chance of winning.
25
So that's the procedural quandary.
Maybe you can get us
out of the procedural quandary by convincing me that I'm wrong
that the commercial speech exception applies to your anti-SLAPP
motion.
MS. HURST:
I'll start there, Your Honor.
I also would
address implicitly the first part of the Court's question,
which is can I do this under 12(b)(6) as well.
right with the Court --
If that's all
THE COURT:
You can address that.
MS. HURST:
-- I'll address both of those, Your Honor.
10
Your Honor, the complaint in paragraphs 37 through 43
11
premises this lawsuit on the petition that was put up at
12
change.org complaining that ADP's conduct was unethical and
13
anti-competitive.
14
Your Honor, in particular, paragraphs 42 and 43 of the
15
complaint charge that the petition gathered 571 signatures of
16
current or potential ADP customers and individuals, that
17
Zenefits' false -- allegedly false statements engendered at
18
least 60 comments supportive of Zenefits.
19
That's paragraph 42, Your Honor.
20
And paragraph 43, ADP goes on to allege the petition, and
21
some of the negative comments were broadly distributed through
22
other social media channels, including via Twitter and
23
FaceBook.
24
25
This has generated an increasing volume of discussion on

blogs and digital media forums.
For example, one blog posted
an article entitled, "ADP intentionally broke its Zenefits'
integration," and so forth.
THE COURT:
But putting aside, for the moment, the
petition, and just addressing that last point you made about
the -- it going to FaceBook and generating blog posts.
MS. HURST:
Yes.
THE COURT:
And there was even something in Politico, as
8
9
I recall.
MS. HURST:
Business Insider.
10
got a lot of attention, Your Honor.
11
public concern.
12
THE COURT:
Forbes.
TechCrunch.
It
This was an issue of
It is.
But what does that have to do with the
13
language of the anti-SLAPP statute that creates the commercial
14
speech exception?
15
MS. HURST:
So what that means, Your Honor, is the
16
commercial speech exception does not apply to the petition.
17
Because it is a statement that is -- the petition itself is
18
clearly covered under 42516(e)(3).
19
42517(c), Your Honor, that can take that out of -- the petition
20
out of that protection.
21
22
23
And there's nothing about
And the reason -- Your Honor, the reason that we know

that is from cases like GA Telesis.
In the GA Telesis case, Your Honor, the Court said, when
24
you have mixed speech, you have mixed speech that's clearly on
25
an issue of public concern, there may also be commercial speech

1
2
involved.
I don't concede that, for purposes of discussion.
But
let's suppose that's true.
theories does not eliminate or reduce the chilling effect on
the exercise of free speech.
THE COURT:
The pleading of, quote, unprotected
But that case also says that if the allegedly
protected speech is -- or not "allegedly."
speech is incidental to the non-protected speech, then you
can't bring an anti-SLAPP motion.
10
MS. HURST:
If the protected
Right?
That's right, Your Honor.
But in no way here
11
could the Court conclude from the way the complaint is pled
12
that the protected speech was the incidental speech.
13
THE COURT:
Well, I mean, from the way -- the paragraphs
14
that you point me to do not talk about -- so much about what
15
the speech was as what happened to the speech, how the speech
16
traveled in the marketplace of ideas after it was uttered;
17
right?
18
And the statute talks about what -- it doesn't talk about
19
where the speech goes after it is made, it talks about what
20
kind of speech it is.
21
exception applies depends not, I think, on how the speech
22
travels, but what kind of speech it is.
And whether the commercial speech
23
And so -- and, you know, the way I read the email -- and
24
the petition -- you're focusing on the petition, so I'm happy
25
to focus on that -- but the way I read both the email and the
petition is that they are motivated almost exclusively, if not
exclusively, to promoting Zenefits' products and services.
I mean, let's look at the petition.
Exhibit 2; right?
a big company that is using Zenefits as a pawn in its corporate
chess game, but that language is all geared towards convincing
people to do one thing, and that is to urge ADP's CEO to allow
ADP customers to use Zenefits in conjunction with ADP -- in
other words -- promoting the product.
10
Yes.
The petition is
The petition complains about ADP being
And I don't -- just because it happens to be a petition
11
on change.org, I mean, at some point, in reading your brief, I
12
got the sense that maybe you were arguing that, in and of
13
itself, the fact that it's a petition on change.org means that
14
it cannot be considered commercial speech.
15
But that can't be right.
I mean, to the extent people
16
can use change.org to urge one company to buy another company's
17
products, they're using change.org for the sole purpose of
18
promoting their products.
19
20
21
So -- and the petition in -- the change.org petition

basically says the same thing as the email.
And, to me, both of those seem like they're, like I said,
22
almost exclusively or exclusively directed at promoting
23
Zenefits' products, including, by the way, urging ADP
24
customers, offering ADP customers a thousand dollars to switch
25
from ADP to Intuit so that they can keep using Zenefits'

10
products seamlessly with the payroll system.
MS. HURST:
So this is where Simpson Strong-Tie v. Gore
comes in, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. HURST:
The problem is, the claim isn't premised on
Zenefits' statement about its own services.
the harm is alleged to have occurred.
8
9
That's not where
And that thousand-dollar bounty is a great example.

They're not alleging the thousand-dollar bounty is false.
The
10
statements that they allege are false that caused harm are the
11
statements about ADP.
12
And so, Your Honor, in --
13
THE COURT:
Okay, what statements about ADP?
14
MS. HURST:
That ADP blocked Zenefits without your
15
permission -- paragraph 31 and 38.
16
THE COURT:
But that's --
17
MS. HURST:
That ADP blocked Zenefits because it believed
18
19
20
that it can impede Zenefits -- 32 and 39.

That there -- ADP's measures were unethical and
anti-competitive.
21
This is all in the petition, Your Honor.
22
THE COURT:
But what are those statements, if not an
23
effort to retain Zenefits' customers and to get people to move
24
from ADP to Intuit?
25
What are those statements, if not that?

11
MS. HURST:
Well, Your Honor, the bounty is not in the
petition.
bounty to switch to Intuit in the petition.
4
5
So let's start there.
There is no thousand-dollar
So the statements that I just read were in the petition

and the purpose is to --
THE COURT:
And in the email.
MS. HURST:
Yes.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. HURST:
And the purpose is to enlist the public's aid
10
Absolutely.
in getting ADP to reverse its decision.
11
Zenefits already has these people as customers.
12
already -- you know, the subject -- the recipients of the
13
email, they're already customers.
14
So with the --
15
THE COURT:
But wait a minute.
They're
So you're saying that if
16
it's the communication that's designed to retain customers, to
17
avoid losing customers, as opposed to gaining customers, that
18
it wouldn't be covered under the commercial speech exception?
19
20
21
MS. HURST:
Well, it would depend on if it met the
requirements of that exception, Your Honor.

THE COURT:
Right.
But assuming it meets the other
22
requirements of the section, I mean, you're not saying that
23
that provision of the statute draws a distinction between
24
retaining customers and gaining new customers, are you?
25
MS. HURST:
No, Your Honor.
12
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. HURST:
But for purposes of deciding what the
gravamen of the claim is under Simpson Strong-Tie v. Gore,
you've got to look at where the harm has alleged to have flown.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. HURST:
Yes, Your Honor.
So at page -- let me just make sure I've got the right
8
9
So show me the language in Simpson.
page for the Court here.

At 49 Cal.4th at 32, the Court quotes from the way the
10
Court of Appeal had framed the issue in that case approvingly
11
and says, "The Court of Appeal stated the issue succinctly.
12
the extent that Gore's advertisement consists of
13
representations about his services, Simpson's action does not
14
arise from it.
15
a representation by Gore, the representation was not about
16
Gore's or a competitor's services or business operations."
17
So, Your Honor, to the extent the statements are
18
To the extent that Simpson's action arises from
laudatory about --
19
THE COURT:
Wait, who was Gore?
20
MS. HURST:
Gore was the --
21
THE COURT:
Gore was the lawyer?
22
MS. HURST:
-- lawyer, Your Honor.
23
THE COURT:
But that's because Gore was not making the
24
25
To
That's right.
representation about somebody who was competing with Gore.

But everything in the petition and the letter -- which
13
was emailed to the ADP slash Zenefits customers, was either a
representation about ADP or Zenefits.
And as we know, to the extent there was any doubt on
June 4th, by June 7th we know that ADP and Zenefits were
competitors.
MS. HURST:
Well, Your Honor, at the time the petition
was stated, and on its face, it describes a relationship of not
yet competitors.
THE COURT:
Wait a minute.
10
MS. HURST:
At that relationship was one of supplier- --
11
THE COURT:
But you -- but Zenefits characterized ADP as
12
13
But -- no, because --
a competitor.
MS. HURST:
No, Zenefits characterized ADP as a future
14
competitor explicitly in the petition, Your Honor.
15
they believe they will some day be able to build competitive
16
software and, in the meantime, they want to impede us.
17
That's what it says --
18
THE COURT:
It said
And so do you believe that that's -- the
19
statutory exception for commercial speech draws that
20
distinction?
21
22
23
MS. HURST:
Yes.
Because it says "competitor."
It
doesn't say "future competitor," Your Honor.

THE COURT:
Well, wait a minute.
What's the definition
24
of a future competitor?
I mean, if somebody is trying to
25
complete with me today, or they're laying the groundwork to

14
compete with me, or they're building a product that is going to
be designed to compete with me today and they don't launch the
product until next week, they're a competitor with me today,
aren't they?
MS. HURST:
Not on the facts here, Your Honor.
And the
reason is because the petition is not about what's going to
happen at that future point; it's about the shutoff now.
the shutoff, Your Honor, is in the supplier relationship.
shutoff is in the reseller relationship.
And
The
The shutoff is not
10
about horizontal competition; it's about a vertical
11
relationship that existed at that moment in time between ADP
12
and Zenefits.
13
And Zenefits' petition protests the shutoff, Your Honor.
14
And that's the gravamen of that petition and it's the gravamen
15
of the email as well.
16
17
18
19
And the shutoff occurs only in the vertical relationship,

in the supplier-reseller relationship.
Sure, sure, Zenefits is saying the reason they're doing
this is because --
20
THE COURT:
Is because they're competing.
21
MS. HURST:
Because they want to compete with us in the
22
future and, you know, who could know that, you know, just two
23
days later you would get the email actually confirming yes,
24
your suspicions were correct.
25
But at the time that speech was made, Your Honor, it was
15
made about a supplier-reseller relationship and a fear of
threatened future competition.
3
4
On its face, it describes the parties' relationships as

"not yet competitors."
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. HURST:
Your Honor, one of the questions here is a
Anything else on commercial speech?
relationship between 42516 and 42517.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. HURST:
Because this does meet the test for 42516.
10
And so a question is whether the California legislature
11
actually intended that everything that meets the test under
12
42516 would then get excluded under 42517, Your Honor.
13
14
15
16
17
THE COURT:
Okay.
Talk to me more about that.
Is there
any -- I assume there's no legislative history on that.

MS. HURST:
Your Honor, the only relevant legislative
history here is back-sided in the Simpson case, Your Honor.

And what it says is the legislature considered simply
18
saying that if it's a class of people that is businesses who
19
are competitors then we'll knock it out.
20
21
Period.
And the legislature decided not to do that, not to make

it a matter of identity politics -- if you will -- here.
22
And the reason that that is important in this context,
23
Your Honor, is because of the long line of California cases
24
that say when you're speaking to consumer interests, cases such
25
as Long v. Jay [phonetic] in the silver filling case, when

16
you're speaking to consumer interests, that is absolutely
protected under 42516.
And, Your Honor, the reason here that it matters that at
the time of the petition and the email they were not
competitors is because the content of the petition and the
content of the email is about those consumers, the small
businesses whose interests are being harmed by ADP's action.
8
9
And so the content of the speech is like all that speech

in that other long line of cases.
And the only difference
10
here, Your Honor, is that you have a business that's
11
economically motivated as the proxy for those consumers to
12
bring the bad act to their attention.
13
And in Simpson v. Strong-Tie -- or pardon me, Your Honor,
14
Simpson v. Gore, the Court noted that the legislature didn't
15
decide to just disqualify the thing from 42516 based on whether
16
it was a business.
17
18
19
20
21
And so what we have here, in effect, is an argument:

"Well, because they are competitors, then it's disqualified."
And that can't be right.
That's not what the California
legislature decided.
And that's where the mixed-message cases come in,
22
Your Honor.
Because in GA Telesis and the other mixed-message
23
cases -- even Makaeff v. Trump University, Your Honor, the
24
Court said some of this is about public concern and some of
25
it's not.
Some of it's motivated to get private resolution.
17
Then you really do have to apply the gravamen of the cause of
action or the incidental -- which is incidental to what test,
Your Honor.
protective of the speech on the issue of public concern.
And in doing so, GA Telesis says you've got to be
And that's consistent, Your Honor, with the statutory
language.
supposed to be broadly construed.
say that 42517 was supposed to be broadly construed.
Because the statutory language still says 42516 is

And the legislature did not
And so the effect, as noted in GA Telesis, Your Honor, is
10
that the plaintiff can't mix it all up and in that way get at
11
the protected speech.
12
They're not allowed to do that.
And so, Your Honor, for that additional reason I would
13
respectfully submit the commercial speech exception does not
14
apply to either the petition or the email.
15
THE COURT:
Okay.
I'll look at that further.
16
Now, do you want to say a little bit about what -- if
17
your motion to strike gets denied, can you win on your
18
12(b)(6)?
19
MS. HURST:
Yes.
20
So, Your Honor, recognizing the problem that the Court
21
identified, we tried to divide it up in terms of our
22
evidentiary presentation.
23
THE COURT:
Could I ask -- sorry to interrupt.
24
MS. HURST:
Yes.
25
THE COURT:
But let me ask you one sort of initial
18
question about that.
Has any Court discussed this quandary?
I mean, I'm
guessing that Courts have been put into this situation before,
when a motion to strike and a motion to dismiss is filed, and
the Court concludes that motion to strike should be denied
because it falls under one of the exceptions or something like
that and then that means it can't consider the evidence
submitted in connection with the motion to strike.
Do you know?
Has anybody written on this problem?
10
MS. HURST:
Not that I've seen, Your Honor.
11
THE COURT:
Okay.
12
MS. HURST:
Usually they grant both, yeah, so -- or deny
13
both.
14
would be legally defective in the motion to dismiss context
15
would also support the motion to strike.
16
Because, Your Honor, for all the reasons why a claim
So, Your Honor, the request for judicial notice that we
17
submitted is the materials that can properly be considered on
18
the motion to dismiss because they're all relied upon and
19
referenced in the complaint.
20
And I take a moment to note, Your Honor, that it's
21
somewhat surprising that ADP didn't include the entirety of the
22
petition and the email and other matters in the complaint.
23
In any event, the Court can certainly consider those,
24
including, Your Honor, request for judicial notice, Exhibit 4,
25
which is the ADP communication that started all of this.

19
Because they relied upon that in their complaint; they
discussed it at length.
So they started it with this communication that said
Zenefits access to your data in our ADP RUN system causes
security problems.
And it was in response to that --
THE COURT:
They don't explicitly say that, but I guess
your character- -- I guess I do agree with your
characterization of it.
10
That the pretty strong implication of
that email is that there's a security issue.
11
MS. HURST:
Very strong, Your Honor.
12
THE COURT:
Okay.
13
MS. HURST:
"Anyone with administrative access to your
14
RUN account has access to your payroll and tax data, your
15
historical reports, your HR details and documents.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"This access can create risks with the security and

accuracy of your account.
"Keep your data safe and secure.
If you need assistance
in limiting third-party access, call us."

THE COURT:
I find it weird that this email does not say,
"We're shutting Zenefits down."

What do you make of that?
Or what should we make of
that, in the context of this motion to dismiss?

MS. HURST:
Well, what we should make of it, Your Honor,
is that they say in the complaint that that's not the reason
20
they shut Zenefits down.
And the significance of that, for purpose of the motion
to dismiss, is that Zenefits was right that there were other
reasons for shutting them down.
So what Zenefits reasonably perceived -- the Court can
see from this series of events -- as a security reason for
shutting them down, but not knowing what was happening in spite
of ADP, means that Zenefits and Mr. Conrad were reasonable in
concluding that security was a pretext for the action.
10
THE COURT:
Right.
11
MS. HURST:
In fact, they admit it was not the actual
12
reason, and so this conclusion of pretext was correct.
13
THE COURT:
Okay.
I get that.
14
MS. HURST:
So why does this matter -- why does it
15
matter, Your Honor -- not to be childish about it, but "ADP
16
started it."
17
Your Honor.
18
It matters for the Public Figure Doctrine,

Really matters.
So, Your Honor, we believe that ADP is a public figure
19
under Gertz, under both tests, both the general purpose test
20
and the limited purpose test, but for sure, given the "ADP
21
started it" sequence of events here, they injected themselves
22
by starting this controversy among hundreds, if not thousands,
23
of mutual customers.
24
THE COURT:
25
Well, they didn't, like, you know, urge
people to sign a petition on change.org or anything.

21
MS. HURST:
No, but --
THE COURT:
They just sent --
MS. HURST:
-- having started the fight, they are now --
have now injected themselves in a way that absolutely satisfies
the limited purpose Public Figure Doctrine.
6
7
And then they continued to engage -- and, Your Honor, I

really --
THE COURT:
Well, could I ask you one question about
10
MS. HURST:
Yes.
11
THE COURT:
You're saying that it's relevant to the
that?
12
Public Figure Doctrine, but could it also be rel- -- could the
13
whole "ADP started it" point also -- be relevant to whether the
14
statements are act- -- the statements by Zenefits are
15
actionable, regardless of whether it's a public dispute or a
16
private dispute?
17
MS. HURST:
Yes.
Yes.
Because it provides the context
18
and the tenor, Your Honor, of a public argument.
19
very widespread argument among a lot of small businesses.
20
THE COURT:
Or at least a
But why does it matter that it's public?
21
mean, wouldn't it also be relevant just because ADP -- whether
22
you consider it private or public, ADP sent an email to a bunch
23
of customers, Zenefits' customers, that effectively trashed
24
Zenefits, and then ADP shut Zenefits out and Zenefits is
25
understandably very upset about this and sends a somewhat

22
1
2
vitriolic letter to its customers in response to that?

I mean, doesn't -- I guess what I'm asking is, I mean,
the fact that ADP quote/unquote started it, I mean, isn't that
relevant to considering the context, regardless of whether --
relevant to considering whether Zenefits' statements are
actionable --
MS. HURST:
Yes.
THE COURT:
-- regardless whether we characterize it as a
public or private dispute, which I find rather difficult?
10
MS. HURST:
It is, Your Honor.
It is relevant.
11
THE COURT:
And why?
12
MS. HURST:
Because the audience has all the information
13
they need to understand what's happening here.
14
are these mutual customers.
15
communication from ADP, as the Court put it, basically trashing
16
Zenefits, and then they get Zenefits' response saying, you
17
know, that was totally unwarranted trashing, and that is the
18
response in which there's, you know, the tenor is, first of
19
all, a petition, which is significant in terms of tenor,
20
Your Honor.
21
argument.
22
argument about this."
23
The audience
They've first gotten one
An appeal to collective action.
That's an
It's, on its face, framed as, "Now we're having an
Then you've got the colorful language:

Unethical.
High-handed.
24
Corporate chess game.
Anti-competitive.
25
Court's word "vitriolic" I think is a fair one.
The
23
And, Your Honor, then -- so then we look at those two
facts and, say, "Weigh that against anything in here that might
be susceptible being proved true or false."
Which there's not much of, Your Honor.
5
6
7
8
9
Not much, if
anything.
And, Your Honor, the fact that they started it gives the
context for the debate in the framing of the pleading.
If we knew more, if we had also the evidence from the
motion to strike, we would also know that ADP publicly
10
continued the debate by putting things on their website, that
11
they said "Let the marketplace decide," which is the core of
12
the Gertz's policy, and then, when they were losing, when they
13
didn't like the comments and the emails they were getting,
14
that's when they came to court.
15
But we can stop there at the response and know,
16
Your Honor, that, from the overall context, the motion to
17
dismiss should be granted.
18
Now, Your Honor, the question on public figure is not
19
just whether the issue was one of public interest.
20
question is whether ADP is a general or limited purpose public
21
figure for purposes of the speech at issue, whether you call it
22
public interest speech or not.
23
The
And so, Your Honor, as an aside, Your Honor, in Rosenblum
24
the Court would have traded newsworthiness as the central
25
consideration, and it's not clear whether the Court carved back
24
1
2
on that in the corporate context.

But assuming that Gertz applies to a corporation and that
corporations -- big public corporations like ADP aren't just
automatically public figures -- which is one of our contentions
here, Your Honor -- nonetheless, we look at Gertz, and Gertz
says there are two reasons why the Public Figure Doctrine
should apply.
figures usually enjoy significantly greater access to the
channels of effective communications.
10
11
12
13
First, the availability of self help.
Public
And second, Your Honor,
that the plaintiff has assumed a role of special prominence.

Both of those things are true here.
ADP has pervasive
fame and notoriety in the payroll services business.

Your Honor, the 10(k), which is also reasonably subject
14
to judicial notice and considerable -- to be considered on the
15
motion to dismiss, as well as their complaint, makes clear
16
they're a giant public company.
17
customers in 125 countries.
18
19
20
21
22
They are a public figure.
They process 625,000 business
$60 billion market cap?
They
are a public figure, Your Honor.

But even if they weren't a general-purpose public figure,
here they injected themselves by starting it.
THE COURT:
Well, but I don't know.
I mean, they sent an
23
email to their customers who also used Zenefits.
And they
24
didn't do a press release; they didn't do an announcement.
25
They sent an email to their customers.

25
And so, you know --
MS. HURST:
So that what's happened in Beech, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Mm-hm.
MS. HURST:
That's also what happened in Beech.
5
6
7
8
9
10
were, you know -THE COURT:
Remind me what Beech was about.
I don't
think I've read Beech yet.

MS. HURST:
Yeah, let me just make sure, Your Honor,
before I -- there's two aviation cases, Your Honor, and I want

to make sure I don't have them mixed up.
11
(Pause in proceedings.)
12
MS. HURST:
13
There
Your Honor, I'm mistaken.
I was thinking of
GA Telesis rather than Beech.
14
THE COURT:
Okay.
15
MS. HURST:
I apologize.
16
THE COURT:
That case, I've read.
17
MS. HURST:
Yep.
18
Your Honor, the fact that they sent the email to hundreds
19
20
of companies in which multiple employees work -THE COURT:
Because in GA Telesis they sent a letter to
21
three companies; right?
The three suppliers, or manufacturers,
22
or whoever they were.
23
MS. HURST:
Yes.
24
THE COURT:
But that case went off on a different point.
25
MS. HURST:
Went off on a different ground, Your Honor.
26
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. HURST:
The public figure ground.
3
4
5
6
All right.
The Court's
absolutely right.
Your Honor, the main cases here on public figure are
Mattel v. MCA; Beech; and Reliance, Your Honor.
In all of those cases, the Court found that the
corporation plaintiff was a public figure.
And it was a
combination of, Your Honor, them being particularly notorious
in the field in which the statements were made -- which is
10
clearly the case here, Your Honor -- and the fact that there
11
were statements made before and after -- if you look at MCA
12
Records, Your Honor -- both before and after the matter had
13
become the subject of even greater public scrutiny.
14
So maybe this is a slow death problem.
I don't think it
15
is, Your Honor.
16
summary judgment the Court would be able to consider the fact
17
that they put up a posting with a point-by-point refutation
18
that said, "Let the marketplace decide."
19
20
21
It's clearly a slow death problem because on
That's -- you know, that's it on public figure.
They're
conceding the very premise under Gertz for its application.

So should the Court wait?
No.
The Court should not wait
22
because it has enough now, with their injection, to find -- and
23
their notoriety, and the subject matter, all of those things
24
put together -- to find public figure.
25
And of course the significance of that, Your Honor, is

27
that they did not allege actual malice.
THE COURT:
Right.
MS. HURST:
They did not -- and they concede they did not
allege actual malice.
Your Honor, I take to heart the Court's comments as to
whether they could properly allege actual malice on the facts
here, and so I would say in that final regard, Your Honor,
regarding the relationship between the motion to dismiss and
the motion to strike, if the Court were to grant the motion to
10
dismiss --
11
And by the way, Your Honor, just for a moment, on the
12
federal false advertising claim, which is the only reason we're
13
here in federal court, that Lexmark case makes clear that the
14
thousand-dollar bounty cannot be a hook for standing under the
15
(indiscernible.)
16
alleged lost customers.
17
18
19
That's where they -- really, where they
But that's not the false statement.

goes, Your Honor.
Your Honor, so -- when you look at that, that's the only
20
reason we're in federal court.
21
defective.
22
And so that claim
All the other claims are
The motion to dismiss should be granted.
Having said that, Your Honor, the question, then, is
23
would that moot the motion to strike in some way.
And the
24
answer is no, if they want to -- if they really want leave to
25
amend.
Okay?
28
1
2
3
But, Your Honor, we're willing to let this be the end of

it.
I'm just going to say -- for Zenefits and Parker Conrad,
if they say, "You know what?
the Court's going to dismiss, that's it," we're willing to say,
"Okay.
I won't seek leave to amend.
If
Enough is enough."
And, Your Honor, this case does not belong in federal
court.
These parties can both fight it out in the court of
public opinion.
10
THE COURT:
This case does not belong in court.
11
MS. HURST:
Correct, Your Honor.
12
THE COURT:
All right.
13
MR. LEWIS:
Well, that's a tough statement to follow up
14
on, Your Honor.
15
it certainly does belong in court.
I'm going to have to try to persuade you that
16
THE COURT:
I'm willing to be persuaded.
17
MR. LEWIS:
And my concern is that somehow the facts that
18
have been introduced by ADP in this case have been either
19
forgotten or ignored.
20
So, for example, such things as "ADP started this" and
21
the Court's concern that some email later, to which we've
22
objected -- and I don't think there's an evidentiary basis for
23
it today anyway -- somehow undoes the libel claim.
24
I don't think that works factually.
25
So let me just, for a minute -Kelly Lee Polvi, CSR, RMR, FCRR - 503.779.7406 - kpolvi@comcast.net
29
THE COURT:
Talk to me about that.
MR. LEWIS:
-- go back to what the facts --
THE COURT:
Talk to me about -- talk to me, though,
about -- since you mentioned it, why does -- okay.
sort of summarize the dispute; all right?
product that works with ADP.
So just to
Zenefits has a
Works with ADP's product.
On June 4th --
Maybe it was June 3rd; I don't remember the exact date.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I think it was June 4th.
No, actually, I think it was
June 5th.
-- ADP sends an email to Zenefits' customers raising
concerns -- security concerns about Zenefits' product.
On the same day, or the day after, ADP denies access to
the ADP system for people with Zenefits emails.
On the same day, Zenefits' CEO sends an angry letter to
16
Zenefits' customers who also use ADP for payroll.
And one of
17
the things Zenefits' CEO says is their concerns about security
18
are not true, what's really happening here is ADP's trying to
19
freeze us out because they hope to introduce a competing
20
product, a product that competes with Zenefits'.
21
And then, three days later -- maybe it was two days
22
later -- ADP people start emailing their customers, customers
23
who use Zenefits, and say, "Hey, we got this new product that
24
competes with Zenefits.
25
the Zenefits product.
You should use this product instead of
It's a lot easier to change your
30
benefits person than it is to change your payroll person."
How is that not relevant to your defamation claim?
MR. LEWIS:
Well, first of all, those facts are wrong, as
presented by the Court.
THE COURT:
Okay, tell me why.
MR. LEWIS:
Well, let me do it.
declarations.
8
9
Because it's in the
So here's what really happened:
Zenefits never
integrated with ADP.
10
THE COURT:
You're using -- I didn't say -- in my
11
recitation I did not use the word "integration."
And I did not
12
use the word "integration" intentionally because you are trying
13
to use a hyper-technical definition of the word "integration"
14
to allege that what they said about integration is false.
15
That's -- that argument is ridiculous.
16
MR. LEWIS:
Well --
17
THE COURT:
But I didn't say -- I didn't -- so you said
18
that my recitation of the facts are wrong.
And the first thing
19
you said is that it's wrong that Zenefits was integrated with
20
ADP.
I didn't say that.
21
So what about the facts that I recited to you are wrong?
22
MR. LEWIS:
23
Zenefits never worked with ADP -- as other vendors of its
I'll use a different word.
24
ilk do -- to properly and safely and securely obtain
25
information from ADP's RUN database.

31
1
2
THE COURT:
Okay, but what about the facts that I've
recited --
MR. LEWIS:
I'm getting to them.
THE COURT:
-- are wrong?
MR. LEWIS:
They never did that.
In late May of 2015, ADP started getting horrific
problems in their database for this RUN system and made them
have to take certain actions to try to deal with them --
THE COURT:
Right.
10
MR. LEWIS:
-- and to try to figure out who was causing
11
those.
12
THE COURT:
Right.
13
MR. LEWIS:
In June 3 and 4, when the spikes got even
14
worse, they figured out who it was, and it was Zenefits.
15
THE COURT:
Right.
16
MR. LEWIS:
So Mr. Anderson -- Richard Anderson, not
17
someone else -- made the decision to cut off access to the RUN
18
system by Zenefits.com addresses to make sure that the system
19
was not imperiled.
20
THE COURT:
Right.
21
MR. LEWIS:
His only reason for doing that was the danger
22
to the database that ADP had.
23
24
25
That's what they did.
That's all.
That happened on the 4th and the
5th.
So they -- so those people were cut off at Zenefits.
32
Now, independently, completely differently, different
group of people, even, had he in earlier May seen that they're
getting a lot of requests from Zenefits for administration
accounts.
that means somebody is getting into these accounts and are able
to change data in there, and so -- and we've never vetted how
they do it and the security on which they -- for they use for
it."
9
10
Somebody said, "That's somewhat concerning because
So that was a concern.
That was brought up to a
different group of people.
11
THE COURT:
And where's that in the complaint?
12
MR. LEWIS:
That's in the McGinness declaration.
13
THE COURT:
Where is that in the -- that's not in the
14
complaint, that's in the McGinness declaration.
15
Okay.
Okay.
16
MR. LEWIS:
And then -- well, I'd have to look.
17
be in the complaint itself.
18
anyway.
19
20
21
It may
It's in the McGinness declaration,
And so, quite independently, they decide what they should

do is -Well, they do two things.
In May, they actually start
22
cutting off new requests from Zenefits.com to sign up as
23
administrators until they can figure out something for
24
security, and then they send out, on June 3rd -- not knowing
25
anything about the database problem because these are people in

33
a different area of ADP entirely -- they write that email,
which all it says is -- it's not intended to be pejorative or
anything, it just says:
somebody administration credentials and that allows them to get
into your system and make changes that we don't know about.
THE COURT:
the email says?
credentials?
MR. LEWIS:
Please be aware that you've given
Because you're given somebody?
Is that what
You've given somebody administrative
Well, it probably says "Zenefits."
10
We have it in front of us.
11
THE COURT:
"We are contacting you because we noticed
12
that one of your RUN powered by ADP users has an email address
13
with Zenefits."
14
MR. LEWIS:
Yeah.
15
THE COURT:
Okay.
16
MR. LEWIS:
So that issue is for anybody where -- so all
So it's that very issue.
Sure.
17
they were doing is letting them know that -- make sure you
18
understand that they could get to all your information and now
19
have the right to change your information.
20
ADP doesn't know what changes are made, and so now it
21
can't be sure things are right or wrong in your system anymore.
22
23
24
25
So -- it doesn't say we're going to do anything about it,

it just says that.
THE COURT:
Did Zenefits and ADP not have any sort of
contractual relationship at this point?

34
MR. LEWIS:
The only contractual relationship they had
was one that was -- started into in early 2004 and it was a
referral agreement.
And so if --
THE COURT:
What was the referral agreement?
MR. LEWIS:
The referral agreement was if Zenefits had
customers that they've sent on to ADP that became ADP
customers, Zenefits would get some money from ADP.
THE COURT:
Mm-hm.
The whole idea being everybody
knew -- this was no great surprise to ADP in June of 2015 --
10
that there were lots of Zenefits and ADP customers out there
11
and Zenefits was doing what it was doing.
12
Maybe you didn't know how Zenefits was doing it.
13
MR. LEWIS:
They did not; that's right.
14
THE COURT:
But you knew that there was a relationship
15
between Zenefits and -- that plenty of customers out there were
16
using Zenefits to operate the payroll and benefit system --
17
MR. LEWIS:
Yes.
18
THE COURT:
-- for them.
19
MR. LEWIS:
Yes.
And we did not know how.
And the
20
problem was, when we finally figured out what they were
21
doing --
22
23
THE COURT:
It's not like, "Oh, my God.
Zenefits is
sneaking into our system."
24
MR. LEWIS:
No.
25
THE COURT:
Right.
35
MR. LEWIS:
And I don't think ADP, as long as it didn't
create a harm, or potential harm, to the database -- because
the database isn't just for Zenefits' customers, it was -- this
particular database had --
THE COURT:
So why would --
MR. LEWIS:
-- 84,000 others.
THE COURT:
I don't understand.
If ADP was fully aware
that Zenefits was working for these companies and operating
their payroll and benefits systems, why would ADP care that
10
people with Zenefits' email addresses had access to customer
11
accounts?
12
MR. LEWIS:
Because they could make -- ADP normally --
13
THE COURT:
What security concern, that was written about
14
15
16
17
in this email, was presented by Zenefits?

MR. LEWIS:
that information.
THE COURT:
Because another party had, now, access to all

And so another party could be hacked -But companies -- small businesses hire
18
outside third parties all the time to administer their payroll
19
and benefits systems.
20
MR. LEWIS:
All the time.
This is different than that, though.
This
21
is -- the information that's in ADP's system.
22
people into that system on particular terms and conditions.
23
These are none.
24
So that was ADP's concern.
25
ADP allows
Because they were coming in
in a way ADP didn't know.

36
THE COURT:
But ADP had entered into this business
relationship with Zenefits where they were cross-promoting each
other.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MR. LEWIS:
I don't see the relationship at all.
is -- that's right.
THE COURT:
One
We know you have customers --
What do you mean you don't see -- you
described the relationship to me just now.

MR. LEWIS:
I don't understand the connection between the
two the Court's trying to draw.

The fact that Zenefits is around and has customers that
11
might go to ADP for which ADP might pay Zenefits has nothing to
12
do with whether the way Zenefits does it creates a potential
13
security risk that the ADP's and joint Zenefit customers ought
14
to know about.
15
So that's a simple thing.
And that's all that thing said
16
was, you have to be aware that, since you've given them this
17
kind of access, it has these possible ramifications.
18
all it says.
19
20
21
22
Nothing more or nothing less.
And it has nothing to do with why the Zenefits.com

addresses were cut off.
They didn't know about the group.
That's in the
McGinness declaration; that's in the Anderson declaration.
23
And so --
24
THE COURT:
25
That's
So -- but the real question here is whether
the letter sent by the Zenefits CEO and the petition have
37
actionable statements in them.
MR. LEWIS:
Yes.
THE COURT:
That's the real question.
MR. LEWIS:
That is.
THE COURT:
So why don't you tell me which statements
in -- let's start with the letter; shall we?
MR. LEWIS:
Sure.
THE COURT:
Why don't you tell me which statements in the
9
10
11
12
13
14
letter are actionable -- or potentially actionable, depending

on how the facts come out.
MR. LEWIS:
Right.
And these are pleaded and we also
have them summarized in footnotes in both of our -THE COURT:
I'm interested in the -- looking at the
actual letter, not your summary of the letter.
15
MR. LEWIS:
That's fine.
16
THE COURT:
You have the letter?
17
MR. LEWIS:
I do.
18
THE COURT:
Okay.
19
MR. LEWIS:
It's, in fact, Exhibit 1 to the request for
20
21
judicial notice.
So the first one is in paragraph 3.
"Yesterday, without
22
your permission, ADP systematically deactivated these
23
accounts."
24
THE COURT:
Without your permission?
25
MR. LEWIS:
Right.
38
THE COURT:
But without your permission -- I mean, you
have a very hyper-technical definition of "without your
permission."
the language of another case -- I don't remember which one it
is -- but these are not lawyers that you were sending the
letters that -- that Zenefits was sending the letter to.
7
8
9
And these are not lawyers that you're -- to use
That phrase -- "without your permission," that phrase, is

used colloquially.
And what it means -- what it would mean to any normal
10
person is not, "Oh, when you signed up with ADP you didn't give
11
them the authorization to do something along these lines," what
12
it means, to any normal person who runs a company and has to
13
worry about whether their employees are going to get their
14
benefits or whether the system has been shut down is, "Hey,
15
they made this change without your permission, without calling
16
you, without notifying you, without letting you know, without
17
asking you, that is really going to affect the ability of us to
18
deliver benefits to your employees."
19
That's a totally reasonable interpretation of that
20
phrase.
21
you're trying to impose on it.
22
Far more reasonable than the hyper-technical one
MR. LEWIS:
I don't need that hyper-technical one.
What
23
I think that really does, for somebody who is a layperson,
24
says, "They shut it down without your permission and they
25
needed your permission, so that's a bad thing."

39
Why say it, otherwise?
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. LEWIS:
You could just say they shut it down.
THE COURT:
What else?
What else?
MR. LEWIS:
All right.
The second one is, the reason for
this is that ADP believes that one day it can build software to
compete with Zenefits.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. LEWIS:
Now, that one could -- we'll get to this
10
email that you've talked about -- that one could run into that
11
statement.
12
And in the meantime --
13
THE COURT:
14
15
16
Wait.
Sorry.
I didn't understand what you
were saying.
MR. LEWIS:
Oh, I'm sorry.
The Court has indicated its
reliance on an email from an ADP person.
17
THE COURT:
Not for purposes of the 12(b)(6) motion.
18
MR. LEWIS:
Exactly.
19
THE COURT:
Okay.
20
MR. LEWIS:
All right.
21
22
So this statement then, by
itself, without looking at it, is defamatory.

THE COURT:
That -- okay.
"ADP is claiming they're
23
taking this action for security reasons, but this is clearly
24
not true.
25
For years" -- blah, blah, blah, blah.
Where is it?
Where is the -- where is the sentence?
40
1
2
3
4
MR. LEWIS:
Well, the one that would be wrong was in the
paragraph just before that.

"The reason for this is that ADP believes it can one day
build software to compete with Zenefits."
THE COURT:
Got it.
MR. LEWIS:
That's false.
THE COURT:
And so that is -- so that statement, you
allege, in the complaint, is false.
one day build software to compete with Zenefits.
10
That ADP believed it can
Now, putting aside the email from two days later from ADP
11
to Zenefits' customers saying, "We have software to complete
12
with Zenefits'," putting that aside, for purposes of this
13
discussion, that statement is actionable because -- I mean, for
14
that statement to be actionable, the reader of that letter
15
would have to believe that Zenefits was in a position to know
16
what ADP believed at the time; right?
17
Is that a correct statement?
18
For that -- for that statement to be actionable, for the
19
statement about ADP's belief --
20
MR. LEWIS:
Yes.
21
THE COURT:
-- to be actionable --
22
MR. LEWIS:
It would have.
23
THE COURT:
-- the reader of this letter would have to
24
believe that Zenefits is in a position to know what ADP
25
believes about its ability to build software in the future.

41
Is that a correct statement of the law?
MR. LEWIS:
I think that is, yes.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. LEWIS:
And here that's true because, as you're
reading in this letter, the CEO points out about their close
relationship with ADP.
So a reasonable reader of this would say, "Yeah, and
there's a guy who ought to know what he's talking about."
THE COURT:
Okay.
10
MR. LEWIS:
So I don't have a problem with that either.
11
THE COURT:
Okay.
12
MR. LEWIS:
The second part of that is also false.
"In
13
the meantime, they would like to do anything they can to impede
14
Zenefits."
15
So this statement is, the reason they cut you off without
16
your permission was because one day they believe they can build
17
software, and, in the meantime, they like to do anything they
18
can to impede you.
19
THE COURT:
So "they'd like to do anything they can to
20
impede" sort of hooks back onto the statement about the
21
belief --
22
MR. LEWIS:
Yeah.
23
THE COURT:
-- about ADP's belief that it's going to --
24
MR. LEWIS:
It's the second explanation for the reason.
25
THE COURT:
Okay.
42
1
2
MR. LEWIS:
That's exactly right.
That, is also,
defamatory.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. LEWIS:
In the next sentence -- next paragraph,
"ADP's claiming that they are taking this action for security
reasons, but this is clearly not true."
ways.
reasons, and certainly the action wasn't taking for security
reasons.
10
This is false two
ADP wasn't claiming they were taking it for the security
So that's doubly false.
THE COURT:
Well, but wait a minute.
At the same time
11
that ADP shut Zenefits down it sent an email to ADP's slash
12
Zenefits' customers saying there are security problems with
13
Zenefits.
14
So you say that it's false in two ways.
I mean, isn't it
15
reasonable for Zenefits to conclude, in light of the context,
16
that the reason ADP is shutting Zenefits down is security
17
reasons?
18
MR. LEWIS:
No.
19
THE COURT:
Given that email?
20
MR. LEWIS:
No, I don't think it is at all.
Because they
21
also knew the problem we stated we were having, that we were
22
having trouble with the database.
So no.
23
THE COURT:
Okay.
24
MR. LEWIS:
This is just false statement.
25
Then it says -- goes on:
For years, ADP has led
43
customers and third parties.
paraphrasing now.
3
4
They had people -- I'm
What Zenefits does is no different.
That's absolutely untrue, And Zenefits knows that's

untrue.
It's nothing like what the other people do.
THE COURT:
Well, again, I think that falls in the same
category as your argument about "integrated," and it falls into
the same category as your argument about "without your
permission," is that you're being very hyper-technical about it
10
11
instead of colloquial.
I think colloquially, I think it is true that -- based on
12
the facts alleged, that Zenefits -- on a 10,000-foot level,
13
Zenefits -- or even a 1,000-foot level, Zenefits does the same
14
thing that another third-party administrator would do when
15
handling payroll and benefits for a small business.
16
happen to do it in a different way, but, on a fundamental
17
level, they're doing the same thing.
18
19
20
MR. LEWIS:
They
Well, you go on a high enough fundamental
level, we're all doing the same thing.

I'm not sure that works here, especially for these
21
people, who know darn well what Zenefits does -- because it's a
22
Zenefits customer -- and they know what they had their own
23
bookkeepers and stuff doing.
24
They know -- even they --
25
THE COURT:
You didn't even know how Zenefits was doing
44
it.
Why do you think that the customers --
MR. LEWIS:
Well, they know they're not -- they're not
doing it the same way as a bookkeeper.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. LEWIS:
That, they do know.
THE COURT:
Next:
MR. LEWIS:
In fact, even today, ADP will (indiscernible
- reading) third-party administrator (indiscernible - reading)
payroll unless they have a Zenefits.com email address.
10
That's not so.
There's a protocol for doing that that's
11
in the user agreement.
12
well.
And that's attached to our documents as
That's the McGinness declaration.
13
So that's not a true statement either.
14
THE COURT:
Is that material in any way?
15
MR. LEWIS:
Well, yes, it's another false statement.
16
So I think these are all material.
17
THE COURT:
Okay.
18
MR. LEWIS:
In the next sentence, the statement is,
19
20
"Zenefits is still completely compatible with ADP payroll."

That's not true.
It's not true in two ways.
It was
21
never completely compatible, and it certainly isn't, at this
22
point.
23
24
25
THE COURT:
My view on that is the same as the "without
your permission" and "integrated" and all that.

Next.
45
MR. LEWIS:
All right.
It says that ADP has decided to
create more work for their own clients in order to attack
Zenefits.
That's not true.
Paragraph two more down:
They repeat that "without your
permission" and they state ADP is creating a complication for
even their attempt to block Zenefits service.
8
9
10
THE COURT:
Why not?
Why is that not true?
I mean,
blocking Zenefits does create -- they block Zenefits' service,

and that does create complications for the clients; right?
11
What's not true about that?
12
MR. LEWIS:
13
That's not true.
It would suggest that they were blocking the
service improperly with Zenefits.
14
THE COURT:
Well, no, what it says is it's creating this
15
complication for you -- that's true.
16
for that them -- in their attempt to block Zenefits' service.
17
It was an attempt to block --
18
MR. LEWIS:
Well, I'm not sure that's true either because
19
there's a question about complication.
20
customer from still using RUN.
21
22
23
24
25
It created a complication
Since nothing stops a
Nothing stopped it even then.
THE COURT:
Yeah, but they were using Zenefits to use
MR. LEWIS:
Right.
RUN.
But you could just do it in a
different way.
THE COURT:
That's not a complication?
46
MR. LEWIS:
It would depend.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. LEWIS:
That's probably it for this document.
THE COURT:
Okay.
email?
Next.
Now, you wanted to talk about the
Or did you -- were you done talking about the email?
MR. LEWIS:
This was the email.
THE COURT:
The email -- I'm sorry.
The email from ADP a
couple of days later to Zenefits slash ADP customers.
MR. LEWIS:
Yep.
First of all, as the Court has noted,
10
that's not in evidence on this motion.
11
was double hearsay in the other motion, so I'm not sure it
12
should be in front of the Court there.
13
We objected to it.
But that's an email from one ADP low-level sales
14
associate, and it's incorrect.
15
because --
16
THE COURT:
is it incorrect?
18
compete with Zenefits?
19
MR. LEWIS:
It was something that later,
What do you mean it's incorrect?
17
As I understand it, that part's incorrect,
yes.
21
on a product at ADP that that person had.
22
product at ADP.
24
25
What part
The part that says we have a new product to
20
23
It
The name of it.
Of any product.
There is no such name

There's no free
So yes, as I understand it, it is wrong in virtually

every material respect.
Also, the Court indicated that it was under the
47
impression that lots of these emails had come from ADP.
false.
evidence -- and it shouldn't be evidence -- is this single
email from this one guy.
There's no evidence of that at all.
That's
The only
And, as I said, ADP, in the press, would add a correction
on that.
Because there was some press going back and forth on
it, F-word, saying it was incorrect.
THE COURT:
Is that in the record?
MR. LEWIS:
That is not in the record.
10
THE COURT:
Okay.
11
On a motion to strike -- I mean, if I decide that the
12
commercial speech exception doesn't apply, I mean, you have a
13
burden of showing a probability of success; right?
14
MR. LEWIS:
I do.
15
THE COURT:
What evidence do you put in to refute
16
Although you have to first --
Zenefits' arguments in support of the motion to strike?
17
Do you --
18
MR. LEWIS:
I have three declarations.
19
THE COURT:
Did you put any evidence to refute the
20
substance of that email that the low-level employee sent to a
21
Zenefits' customer that you contend was completely wrong when
22
it offered a new product to the customer that competes with
23
Zenefits?
24
MR. LEWIS:
We did not put evidence in on that point.
25
THE COURT:
Okay.
48
MR. LEWIS:
Because we thought it was -- first of all --
THE COURT:
Inadmissible.
MR. LEWIS:
-- evidentiary-ali incorrect, and secondly --
THE COURT:
Well, if you thought it was factually
incorrect you should have put evidence in to refute it.
your contention is that it's inadmissible.
But
MR. LEWIS:
It is inadmissible.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. LEWIS:
And, should we need a motion to amend, we
10
certainly can add information as to that.
11
incorrect statement.
12
Because it is an
But that statement by itself, from the statements I just
13
went through -- and if the Court is expressing some reticent to
14
claim what I think the jury would find, that these are
15
defamatory statements, and I think the jury is, under the law,
16
the person who's entitled to do it, not this Court at this
17
motion level.
18
But even --
THE COURT:
You may be right about that.
I mean, it may
19
be -- there are plenty of cases that don't belong in court that
20
Courts don't have the power to dismiss at the pleading stage,
21
and maybe this is one of those cases.
22
MR. LEWIS:
Well, I'm sorry the Court would characterize
23
it that way.
ADP doesn't characterize it that way.
ADP has
24
spent a long time building up an enviable reputation, and it
25
doesn't litigate lightly, and this is one case in which it felt

49
1
2
it actually had no alternative.

And so it doesn't take these things lightly at all.
takes them very seriously.
believe, and we believe a jury would find, that these are
defamatory statements.
And it does believe, and we
And the mere -- well.
it as well, but my point was --
8
9
THE COURT:
And we could go off to the rest of
It seems to me that the change.org petition
is basically -- I mean, I don't know if you want to say
10
anything about that.
11
same thing as the letter.
12
MR. LEWIS:
It seems to me that it's basically the

The contents are basically the same.
It's close.
13
things in it.
14
small business customers.
15
couple other ones in there.
16
17
18
19
It has a couple of additional
It says that ADP's cut off thousands of their
THE COURT:
That's false.
And so it may have a
We've noted them.
Why is it false that ADP has cut off
thousands of customers?
MR. LEWIS:
Because there were only 700 that were
involved in this thing.
20
THE COURT:
Okay.
21
MR. LEWIS:
So that was to puff it up to make it look
22
It
Okay.
like it was something more.
23
THE COURT:
Okay.
24
MR. LEWIS:
And that is a lie.
25
So I'm not sure where -- well, so my last point on that

50
was even if you were to credit that one email, it only relates
to one of the statements I've talked about.
So for the truth as a defense point, that would only
negate one of them.
and would not be evidence for that anyway, I don't think that
goes anywhere.
7
8
9
10
And since we do not believe it is true,
So I could go on and talk more about the defamation

points, or I can briefly talk about the anti-SLAPP motion.
THE COURT:
Why don't you turn to that.
But let me just
ask you one question, before you turn to that.
11
MR. LEWIS:
Sure.
12
THE COURT:
Which is what happens in this case if --
13
let's say I were to conclude that the motion to dismiss should
14
be denied, and the reason I conclude that the motion to dismiss
15
should be denied is that at the motion to dismiss stage I have
16
to accept ADP's assertion that Zenefits' assertion about ADP's
17
motivations were false.
18
That is to say, when Zenefits -- I have to accept your
19
allegation that when Zenefits said the reason ADP is doing this
20
is because they hope some day to have software that competes
21
with us, that that's false.
22
And then it turns out that the email that the ADP
23
employees sent to the Zenefits customer two days later, saying,
24
"We have a new product that competes with Zenefits" is true --
25
let's say that that turns out to be true, and so you lose
51
clearly on summary judgment on the question whether Zenefits'
statement about ADP's motivations was actionable.
At that point do you have a Rule 11 problem?
Does ADP
have a Rule 11 problem, and do its lawyers have a Rule 11
problem?
MR. LEWIS:
I don't believe so, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
By pursuing the lawsuit where there's
evidence that everybody by now should be fully aware of about
whether ADP in fact was producing a product to compete with
10
Zenefits when it shut Zenefits down?
11
MR. LEWIS:
No.
12
THE COURT:
Why not?
13
14
There's no Rule 11 problem here.

I mean, if that evidence is out
there now, why wouldn't that be a problem, a Rule 11 problem?

MR. LEWIS:
Well, I can't exactly speculate on that.
15
not aware of that evidence.
16
there's no Rule 11 because I don't know anything about it.
I'm
So I can tell you right now
17
THE COURT:
But you filed the lawsuit.
18
MR. LEWIS:
Yes, I did.
19
THE COURT:
I mean, you have to -- your obligation is to
20
do a reasonable investigation before filing a lawsuit.
21
MR. LEWIS:
And we did.
22
THE COURT:
And certainly, when presented with an email
23
24
25
like this, your obligation is to investigate it thoroughly.

So is your answer to that simply that it is not true -are you telling me right now, on the record, that it is not
52
1
2
3
4
true that ADP was working on software to compete with Zenefits?

MR. LEWIS:
I have no knowledge that ADP was working on
any software to compete with Zenefits; that is correct.

THE COURT:
Okay.
But you, as a lawyer who brought this
lawsuit, should now be in a position to know the answer to that
question.
the court who has brought a lawsuit that's based on an
allegation that Zenefits' assertion about ADP's motivations was
false, you should know the answer to that question by now, to a
10
You should now be in a position, as an officer of
certainty.
11
Are you saying that you don't know the answer, or are you
12
saying you know the answer and ADP was not developing software
13
to compete with Zenefits?
14
15
16
17
MR. LEWIS:
At this moment today I could not tell you
with a certainty all the evidence.

THE COURT:
Have you done a thorough investigation of
that question?
18
MR. LEWIS:
It is not complete.
19
THE COURT:
Maybe we have should discovery in this case.
20
All right.
21
MR. LEWIS:
But, Your Honor, let me point --
22
THE COURT:
You want to talk about the anti-SLAPP motion
23
24
25
briefly?
MR. LEWIS:
Let's go back to that one more time.
That
issue only goes to one of the defamatory statements.

53
1
2
THE COURT:
Right.
And my question was if I find that
that's the only one that's potentially actionable.
MR. LEWIS:
Well.
THE COURT:
And, by the way, even if some other statement
was actionable, you're suing on that statement.
MR. LEWIS:
I understand that.
THE COURT:
And you're alleging in a lawsuit that that
statement is false that Zenefits --
MR. LEWIS:
We are doing that.
10
THE COURT:
-- made.
11
MR. LEWIS:
That's correct, Your Honor.
12
THE COURT:
And you've been presented with this email
13
from an ADP employee to a Zenefits customer saying -- two days
14
later, saying, "We have a product that competes with Zenefits
15
and we're offering it to you and we suggest that you switch
16
from Zenefits to us."
17
MR. LEWIS:
But let's be clear, again.
Because the Court
18
is going off without the fact again.
What is alleged in the
19
complaint is that Zenefits alleged that we cut off their
20
service because of an interest in developing some of this
21
software.
22
that is not true.
23
He made the decision to cut it off, and he explains the sole
24
reason why he made that decision.
25
nothing do with some other product.
There is evidence right now before the Court that

We have the declaration of Richard Anderson.
And it has absolutely
54
So right now --
THE COURT:
Yeah, but if it turns out --
MR. LEWIS:
-- we know there's no Rule 11 issue anyway.
THE COURT:
Okay.
So you're saying that even if it turns
out that Zenefits was developing software --
MR. LEWIS:
ADP was.
THE COURT:
-- or had developed software to compete
with -- excuse me -- ADP had developed software to compete with
Zenefits, that statement would still be false.
10
MR. LEWIS:
Yes.
11
THE COURT:
And actionable as defamation.
12
MR. LEWIS:
Yes.
13
THE COURT:
Okay.
14
MR. LEWIS:
And we already have evidence that it's false
15
right now before the Court.
16
THE COURT:
17
You want to talk a little bit about the commercial speech
18
19
Okay.
All right.
issue?
MR. LEWIS:
Sure.
As to that one, I mean, the most
20
relevant case I think on that, really, is the LA Taxi case that
21
just came out recently that we referred to the Court.
22
there are other ones as well.
23
24
25
THE COURT:
But
I mean, in essence --
Why is that rel-- -- I read that case.
Why
is that relevant?
MR. LEWIS:
Well just because they went through the --
55
none of these are rocket science in a sense that you simply go
through the requirements of the statute and, if they're met,
then this exemption applies, and, if they're not, they're not.
So you read case after case --
THE COURT:
Right.
MR. LEWIS:
-- and the Court goes through.
THE COURT:
But why is that -- I mean, why was that case
particularly relevant?
weird.
10
11
I actually found that case a little
Because it went through this analysis of whether it was
commercial speech at all.

But the question under the statute is not whether it's
12
commercial speech at all, within the meaning of constitutional
13
law, it's a question of whether it meets the definition of the
14
statute.
15
MR. LEWIS:
Well, they did.
16
THE COURT:
So I didn't find that case very helpful at
17
18
all, either way.

MR. LEWIS:
Well, they went on the -- they went on to
19
find that also there was no public interest anyway.
20
That's what I found interesting about it.
Because it was
21
a case like this one, where, in that one, the anti-SLAPP motion
22
was based on an invented public interest.
23
So there, it was --
24
THE COURT:
25
Yeah, but that was just a pure sort of false
advertising thing where they figured out a way for one cab
56
company to come up on a Google search instead of another cab
company.
MR. LEWIS:
Sure.
THE COURT:
The argument was that the public has an
But the point was --
interest in the taxicab industry.
MR. LEWIS:
Right.
THE COURT:
And the Court said well, that's not enough.
MR. LEWIS:
Right.
THE COURT:
These are two companies --
10
MR. LEWIS:
Into those cases it said sure you can
11
extrapolate anything --
12
THE COURT:
Right.
Okay.
13
MR. LEWIS:
-- into some public interest finally.
14
THE COURT:
I understand your point.
15
MR. LEWIS:
Which is --
16
THE COURT:
I understand your point now.
17
MR. LEWIS:
Which is a better effort than has been done
And I --
18
by Zenefits here with the data lock-in thing that is totally
19
invented.
20
So I don't think the Court needs to get to that.
THE COURT:
I'm more -- yeah, I'm more interested not so
21
much on the public/private distinction as I am on the question
22
whether this is -- this meets the commercial speech exception
23
of the anti-SLAPP statute.
24
25
MR. LEWIS:
Right.
And it certainly does.
And we simply
point out all the evidence in our brief, line by line, that
57
applies.
And there's just no question about any piece of it.
THE COURT:
Mm-hm.
MR. LEWIS:
Well, what about it?
4
5
What about the change.org part?

I mean, for purposes
here, you don't necessarily -THE COURT:
They're asking people to sign a petition.
It's not just -- they're not just communicating with their
customers; they're sort of putting a communication out to the
public and --
MR. LEWIS:
Well, I don't need -- yeah.
I don't need
10
change.org because I'll simply take the communication to the
11
customers.
12
That's the crucial piece.
13
indisputably --
14
THE COURT:
15
That's the piece that is
So are you abandoning your argument that the
change.org petition was defamatory?
16
MR. LEWIS:
No.
17
THE COURT:
Okay.
It is defamatory.
So then answer the question.
I mean,
18
what, about the fact that they put out a petition on change.org
19
that was a communication to everyone, not just their customers,
20
and it talks about big company versus small company and, you
21
know, competition and stuff like that, why wouldn't that take
22
it sort of out of the realm of the commercial speech exception?
23
MR. LEWIS:
Because, as the Court has already noted, it
24
really echos the June 5 email.
And so it is mostly just the
25
same thing, which is the communication about Zenefits'

58
services.
So I don't think that changes anything.
The mere fact you start putting stuff on change.org does
not give everybody a pass now to commit libel.
5
6
THE COURT:
all this.
Fair enough.
Okay.
I'll think further about
Very interesting.
Is there any interest in sitting down with a magistrate
and trying to resolve this, or is this the type of case where
you just take the view that this is ridiculous and there's no
10
way that -- you know, there's no way that this case can be
11
settled, short of a ruling that Zenefits didn't libel ADP?
12
MS. HURST:
Your Honor --
13
THE COURT:
I mean, is there a benefit to sitting down
14
with a magistrate and, you know, maybe it would help sort of --
15
in addition to dealing with this suit, help repair the business
16
relationship, or something along those lines?
17
MS. HURST:
18
that.
19
to litigation.
20
I don't know.
Your Honor, we're certainly willing to do
In fact, Mr. Conrad tried to do that before it ever came
And yesterday we had our Rule 26(f) conference and we
21
proposed that we engage in private mediation at JAMS, for
22
example, Your Honor.
23
what his position was on ADR at that point.
24
25
The plaintiff was not prepared yet to say
A settlement conference with Judge Spero, Judge Grewal,

noted good settlement judges, would be great by us, Your Honor.
59
1
2
Either one of those options.

Your Honor, I had three points that I swear are not
repeats of anything.
THE COURT:
Hold on a second.
MS. HURST:
Okay.
THE COURT:
Hold on a second.
Do you want to respond to that?
MR. LEWIS:
Respond to that?
THE COURT:
On the -- yeah, on the idea of --
10
MR. LEWIS:
Yeah.
11
We are in the position that we are
going to, in fact, send in our reply, and we are amen- --
12
THE COURT:
Sorry.
13
MR. LEWIS:
Send in our reply on ADR, which is that we
14
Send in what?
are amenable to going to JAMS.
15
THE COURT:
Okay.
And you think that would --
16
MR. LEWIS:
And ADP --
17
THE COURT:
Do you think that would be preferable to -- I
18
mean, part of -- you know, I mean, I won't express any further
19
views of my own about this case at this point; I think I've
20
sort of been clear enough.
21
lawyer problem, but it also seems like this is a situation
22
where, you know, somebody in a -- you know, I'm just wondering
23
if, you know, if conversation with -- if the clients
24
participated in a conversation with somebody with a robe, like,
25
it might be of some assistance.
But -- and maybe part of it is a
60
1
2
But, you know, if you think it's better to go to JAMS,

that's fine too.
MR. LEWIS:
Well, I don't think we made a final decision.
ADP also tried to --
THE COURT:
I'm sorry.
MR. LEWIS:
We haven't made a final decision, so.
MS. HURST:
Your Honor, we're amenable to a settlement
What?
conference.
It was my understanding the Court often likes to
ration the judicial resources in settlement conferences, so
10
that was why we had gone the other direction.
11
certainly amenable to a settlement conference before a
12
magistrate judge.
13
THE COURT:
Mm-hm.
Okay.
But we are
I may send you all to an early
14
settlement conference before a magistrate judge with your
15
clients.
16
on -- yeah, I think there may be some benefit to that.
17
I think that may -- there may be some -- depending
But anyway, you wanted to make three -- please, very
18
quick.
Because we have several other cases still on the
19
calendar.
20
MS. HURST:
I understand, Your Honor.
21
First, Docket 20, Exhibit 5, that's the email the Court's
22
been referring to, was not sent by some low-level mistaken
23
person, it was sent by Mason Underato [phonetic], the senior
24
district manager and licensed broker with his license number on
25
it in California.
61
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. HURST:
That leads me to the notion that this --
these motions -- if the Court's not going to grant both of
these motions in its entirety, then it ought to convert it
under Rule 12(d) and grant summary judgment.
THE COURT:
Well, I don't know.
I mean, I don't think
that would be appropriate.
opened yet and -- if we're going to do discovery on this case,
I'm pretty interested in ADP's efforts to develop software to
10
The discovery floodgates haven't
compete with Zenefits.
11
MS. HURST:
Understood, Your Honor.
12
THE COURT:
So we're going to find out all about that, if
13
14
we do discovery in this case.

MS. HURST:
I understand that, Your Honor.
But at a
15
minimum, the Court could issue an order to show cause asking
16
for a 56(d) from them before deciding.
17
THE COURT:
Okay.
18
MS. HURST:
Because, Your Honor, you know, Zene- -- I
19
appreciate the Court's comments and honestly I can't wait
20
either, but Zenefits is really not a big company, and
21
Mr. Conrad is a private individual and they sued him personally
22
here, Your Honor.
23
THE COURT:
Oh, they did?
24
MS. HURST:
They had nothing to gain from that,
25
I didn't notice that.
Your Honor, other than retribution and deterrence.
They're not
62
getting any extra enforceable judgment out of suing Mr. Conrad
personally, and he shouldn't have been sued personally.
And that shows the degree to which the anti-SLAPP statute
should apply here, Your Honor.
chill him in continuing to defend Zenefits in the marketplace,
Your Honor.
Because it was designed to
And so he should not be put to discovery.
should not be put to discovery.
motions, both of them, Your Honor.
10
Zenefits
The Court should grant the
If it is at all troubled, though, I would ask the Court
11
to convert to a 12(d) -- under 12(d) to a Rule 56 and grant
12
summary judgment.
13
they knew they were in jeopardy on the motion to strike and the
14
standard on the part two of the motion to strike is pretty much
15
the same thing as the summary judgment standard.
16
17
18
And they don't need anything else because
So they had every incentive to come forward with evidence

to support their claim.
And if the Court doesn't want to go that step, then at a
19
minimum it could issue an order to show cause, let them file a
20
56(d), and then let us respond and then grant summary judgment.
21
Because, Your Honor, while I, with the Court, would like
22
nothing more than to cross-examine these folks and find out
23
what's really going on here, for Mr. Conrad, who's a new
24
father, for a start-up like Zenefits that's revenues -- you
25
know, it may have gotten funding, but its revenues are not that
63
great.
would like this case to be over.
It really is the David to this Goliath, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Okay.
I'll consider all that and take it
under submission and, like I said, I will probably refer you
all to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference.
Thank you.
MR. LEWIS:
(Proceedings adjourned at 11:34 A.M.)
Thank you.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We
CERTIFICATE OF CONTRACT TRANSCRIBER
I, Kelly Polvi, CSR, RMR, FCRR, certify that the

foregoing is a true and correct transcript, to the best of my
ability, of the above pages of the official electronic sound
recording provided to me by the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, of the proceedings taken on the date
and time previously stated in the above matter.
I further certify that I am neither counsel for,
related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action
in which this hearing was taken, and further, that I am not
financially nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the
action.
Dated October 12, 2015.
_________________________________
Kelly Polvi, CSR #6389, RMR, FCRR
Contract Transcriber
Kelly Polvi, CSR, RMR, FCRR

P.O. Box 1427
Alameda, CA 94501
(503) 779-7406; kpolvi@comcast.net

2015-09-24 (MTD and Motion To Strike) Hearing Transcript

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2015-09-24 (MTD and Motion To Strike) Hearing Transcript

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Before The Honorable Vince Chhabria, Judge

ADP, LLC, a Delaware limited

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE OFFICIAL

Bingham McCutchen LLP

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

San Francisco, California

Transcribed by Kelly Polvi, Contract Transcriber, utilizing

APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

David Kwon, General Counsel, ADP

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2015

Calling civil case No. 15-2560, ADP, LLC,

versus YourPeople, Incorporated.

Counsels, please step forward and state your appearances.

Before you make your appearance, I just

So if you want to go wander the halls or be productive or

something like that, you're free to leave and come back at

hearings until then.

I don't expect to finish up with the next two

I just didn't want to totally waste your time, if you

Robert Lewis on behalf of Plaintiff ADP.

Good morning, Your Honor.

behalf of defendants Zenefits and Parker Conrad.

And, Your Honor, the general counsel,

Hillary Smith, and vice president of litigation, Josh Stein, of

Zenefits, are also here, present, this morning.

My introductions were incomplete.

Kristen Palumbo's here with me.

And also, in the back of the room, is an

attorney from ADP, David Kwon.

So I guess, Ms. Hurst, maybe I want to start with you.

Thank you, Your Honor.

And I think the primary question in this case

is whether the lawsuit will die a slow death or a fast death.

And let me explain what I mean by that.

Reviewing the motion to strike and looking at the

evidence that is submitted in connection with the motion to

strike, it seems clear to me that ADP has no claim for

And in particular, I'm focusing on the fact that there is

is foisting a product on Zenefits' customers, Zenefits'

clients, and saying, "This product that we're offering you

To me, to the extent that on a 12(b)(6) standard the

complaint could be read to state a claim -- I'm not sure it

can -- but to the extent it could, it strikes me that that

evidence, that email, goes a long way towards blowing ADP's

defamation claim out of the water.

So I do want to discuss whether, just reviewing the claim

on the 12(b)(6) standard, there's enough to state a claim.

But the reason why I think it's at least possible that it

anti-SLAPP motion because I think the commercial speech

exception probably applies.

connection with the anti-SLAPP motion, which can be considered

in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion, that has led me to

conclude that ADP has likely filed a defamation lawsuit that

has no merit whatsoever.

Which is, I've looked at evidence submitted in

But if I'm right about the commercial speech exception

and I'm right that I have to deny your anti-SLAPP motion I