Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 305 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 150 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION SEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA, : CIVIL ACTION : Plaintiff, : 3:12-CV-30051-MAP : v. : JUDGE MICHAEL A. PONSOR : SCOTT LIVELY, : MAGISTRATE JUDGE : KATHERINE A. ROBERTSON Defendant. : : REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SCOTT LIVELY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT † Mathew D. Staver † Philip D. Moran (MA 353920) Horatio G. Mihet † 265 Essex Street, Suite 202 Roger K. Gannam Salem, Massachusetts 01970 LIBERTY COUNSEL T: 978-745-6085 P.O. Box 540774 F: 978-741-2572 Orlando, FL 32854-0774 Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 305 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 150 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... vi INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 LAW AND ARGUMENT..............................................................................................................4 I. “I DON’T KNOW” MEANS “I DON’T KNOW”: SMUG IS STUCK WITH THE RECORD IT HAS CREATED AND CANNOT ADVANCE NEW POSITIONS ON WHICH IT HAS DISCLAIMED ALL KNOWLEDGE MERELY TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ...............................................................................6 A. SMUG’s Admitted Total Lack Of Individual And Corporate Knowledge Was Not Only “Pre-Discovery” But Also Post-Discovery And All Points Between ................................................................................................................7 B. SMUG’s Admitted Total Lack Of Corporate Knowledge Is Binding On SMUG And Revokes Its Lawyers’ Creative License. ......................................10 1. The Testimony Of SMUG’s Directors, Officers And Managing Agents Disclaiming Any Knowledge Of Critical Facts Is The Testimony Of SMUG, And Is Binding On SMUG ...............................1. 0 2. The Testimony Of SMUG’s Rule 30(b)(6) Witness Disclaiming Any Knowledge Of Critical Facts States SMUG’s Position And Is Binding On SMUG ...................................................................................14 A. Through Its 30(b)(6) Designee, SMUG Disclaimed Knowledge Of Any Unlawful Conduct Or Involvement By Lively ..........................................................................................1. 4 B. SMUG Is Stuck With The Record It Has Created, And Its Lawyers Cannot Manufacture SMUG’s Contentions On Questions And Topics To Which SMUG Has Disclaimed Knowledge ....................................................................................20 C. SMUG’s Failure To Provide Meaningful Responses To Critical Interrogatories Also Revokes SMUG’s Ability To Present New Theories And Positions ........................................................................................................26 II. SMUG CANNOT DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT TORTIOUS DOMESTIC CONDUCT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION AGAINST EXTRATERRITORIALITY ..........................................................................................30 i Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 305 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 150 A. Even After Discovery, SMUG Has No Knowledge Of Any Relevant Domestic Conduct By Lively Sufficient To OvercomeT he Extraterritorial Presumption.......................................................................................................30 B. SMUG’s Undisclosed Theories, Interpretations And Positions Are Not Sufficient To Displace The Extraterritorial Presumption ..............................3. 3 1. SMUG Did Not Solicit Or Obtain In Discovery Any Facts To Establish The Location Of Lively’s Speech Or Conduct, And, Therefore, Its Claims Regarding Dome stic Conduct Are Based Only On Inadmissible Sp eculation ................................ ......................... 33 2. The Eight Pages Identified By SMUG D o Not Establish That Lively “Manage[D] Actual Crimes” From “Homophobia Central In Springfield Massachusetts ................................ ................................ .......36 3. The Authorities Cited By SMUG Do Not Establish This Court’s ATS Jurisdiction, But Conclusively Defeat It ................................ .......42 III. SMUG HAS ADDUCED NO EVIDENCE THAT LIVELY PERSONALLY AGREED TO EMPLOY THE ILLEGAL MEANS CONTEMPLATED BY ANY CONSPIRACY, AND, THEREFORE, BINDING PRECEDENT REQUIRES SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON FIRST AMENDMENT GROUNDS .........................46 A. The First Amendment Imposes A High Bar For SMUG’s Claims Under The Binding First Circuit Precedent Of United States v. Spock .......................46 1. The Spock “Conspiracy” Involved Speech In The Shadow Of The First Amendment .....................................................................................48 2. The Spock Analysis Applies First Amendment Protections To Alleged Conspiracy Involving Speech ....................................................50 B. Spock Requires Summary Judgment Against SMUG’s Persecution Claims ................................................................................................................................55 1. The Strictissimi Juris Burden Of Spock Applies To SMUG’s Claims ....................................................................................................................55 2. SMUG’s Claims Require Proof That Lively Personally Agreed To Employ The Means Of Criminal Persecution .......................................57 3. SMUG Has Failed To Meet The Spock Burden Of Adducing Substantial Evidence That Lively Personally Agreed To Employ Any Illegal Means Of Criminal Persecution .........................................58 A. SMUG’s Manufactured “Evidence” Of “Intent” Falls Far Short Of Strictissimi Juris ...........................................................59 ii Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 305 Filed 09/01/16 Page 4 of 150 4. SMUG’s Attempt To Brush-Off Spock Lacks Credibility And Demonstrates That SMUG Is Not Even Trying To Satisfy Spock’s Strict Standard .........................................................................................70 C. Spock Requires Summary Judgment Against SMUG’s Joint Criminal Enterprise And Aiding And Abetting Persecution Claims ..............................71 IV. SMUG HAS ADDUCED NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY UNPROTECTED SPEECH OR CONDUCT OF LIVELY PROXIMATELY CAUSED ANY OF THE ALLEGED PERSECUTORY ACTS ....................................................................73 A. SMUG’s Own Book, Egregiously Withheld From Lively In Discovery, Exposes And Dismantles SMUG’s Fraudulent Causation Theory .................74 1. SMUG Literally Wrote The Book Documenting Uganda’s Preoccupation With “Recruitment” And “Promotion” Years Before Lively Arrived In 2002 ................................................................74 2. SMUG Should Be Severely Sanctioned, Up To And Including Dismissal, For Willfully Withholding Critical Evidence From Lively .........................................................................................................82 B. SMUG Has Adduced No Competent Evidence To Rebut The Accurate Picture Of Pre-2002 Uganda In Its Own Book, And SMUG’s Bald Assertions To The Contrary Are Demonstrably Deceptive And False ...........84 C. SMUG Has Adduced No Competent Evidence To Rebut The Binding And Sworn Testimony Of Its Own Witnesses Disclaiming Any Knowledge Of Any Connection Between Lively And The Allegedly Hostile Climate In Uganda Between 2002 And 2009 ........................................................................88 D. SMUG Has Adduced No Competent Evidence To Rebut The Binding And Sworn Testimony Of Its Own Witnesses Disclaiming Any Knowledge Of Any Connection Between Lively And Thirteen Out Of Fourteen Alleged Persecutory Acts...................................................................................................89 E. SMUG Has Adduced No Competent Evidence To Show That Lively’s Comments On The AHB Drafted By Ugandans Contributed To Any Alleged Persecution ..............................................................................................90 V. SMUG HAS NOT PRESENTED COMPETENT EVIDENCE ON EITHER ECONOMIC OR NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES, AND, THEREFORE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED ON SMUG’S CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES, AND CONCOMITANTLY ON ALL OF SMUG’S CLAIMS ..............93 A. Summary Judgment Should Be Entered On SMUG’s Claims For Economic Damages ..............................................................................................93 iii Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 305 Filed 09/01/16 Page 5 of 150 B. Summary Judgment Should Be Entered On SMUG’s Claims For Non- Economic Damages ..............................................................................................98 1. SMUG Has Already Abandoned Non-Economic Damages For Individual Persons, And Cannot Now Change Its Mind ......................99 2. As A Corporate Entity, SMUG Cannot Suffer Non-Economic Damages ..................................................................................................100 3. SMUG Is Barred From Recovering Goodwill Or Reputational Damages Because It Has Failed To Provide The Required Computation In Discovery ....................................................................101 4. SMUG Is Barred From Recovering Goodwill Or Reputational Damages Because It Has Failed To Provide The Required Expert Report To Substantiate Them, Even After It Agreed, Under Oath, That An Expert Witness Was Required ..............................................105 5. SMUG Is Barred From Recovering Goodwill Or Reputational Damages Because It Has Presented No Evidence Of Such Losses, And The Undisputed Evidence From SMUG’s Own Witnesses Demonstrates That It Has None ................................ ........................... 107 6. SMUG Is Constitutionally Barred From Recovering Goodwill Or Reputational Damages Because It Can not Meet The Exacting First Amendment Standard Of New York Times V. Sullivan ...................... 109 7. SMUG Is Barred From Recovering Non-Economic Damages, Including Exemplary Or Punitive Damages, Because SMUG Cannot Recover Economic Damages ..................................................115 C. Because All Of SMUG’s Claims Sound In Tort, SMUG’s Failure To Substantiate Damages Forecloses Its Claims As A Matter Of Law ..............115 VI. SMUG’S CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE EVEN THOUGH SMUG IS NOT SEEKING A JUDGMENT AGAINST UGANDA .....................................................................................................................116 A. SMUG’s Claims Necessarily Require Consideration Of The Legality Of Ugandan Law And Official Acts .......................................................................116 B. Jus Cogens Norms Do Not Preclude Application Of The Act Of State Doctrine ...............................................................................................................121 VII. SMUG’S EVIDENCE FAILS TO SUSTAIN ITS ATS CLAIMS .............................123 A. SMUG’s Evidence Fails To Show A Violation Of Any Universally Accepted And Clearly Defined Norm By Lively ..............................................................123 iv Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 305 Filed 09/01/16 Page 6 of 150 B. SMUG’s Evidence Fails To Satisfy The Elements Of Criminal Persecution As To Lively ........................................................................................................124 VIII. SMUG CANNOT RESCUE ITS STATE LAW CLAIMS FOR FAILING ON EITHER LIMITATIONS GROUNDS OR THE MERITS .......................................125 A. SMUG’s State Law Claims Are Out of Time ..................................................126 1. SMUG Has Adduced No Evidence That Its Claims Did Not Accrue In 2002 .....................................................................................................126 2. SMUG Has Admitted That It Knew That Lively Was The Source Of Its Claimed Persecution Injuries Prior To March 14, 2009, And Has Failed To Rebut Its Own Admissions ...........................................127 3. SMUG’s Continuing Tort Theory Has Been Rejected By The First Circuit And This District.......................................................................130 B. SMUG’s Conspiracy And Negligence Claims Are Unsupported By The Record And the Law ..........................................................................................131 1. SMUG’s Civil Conspiracy Claim Fails For Lack Of Evidence .........131 2. SMUG’s Negligence Claim Fails As A Matter Of Law ......................135 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................136 v Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 305 Filed 09/01/16 Page 7 of 150 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) .................................................................56, 57 Agric. Servs. Ass'n, Inc. v. Ferry-Morse Seed Co., 551 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir. 1977) .....................109 Aldridge v. Lake Cty. Sheriff's Office, No. 11 C 3041, 2012 WL 3023340 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2012) ...............................................................................................22, 24, 25 Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2014) ..................................44, 45 Ameen v. Amphenol Printed Circuits, Inc., 777 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2015) .....................................132 Am. Gold Star Mothers v. Nat'l Gold Star Mothers, 191 F.2d 488 (D.C. Cir. 1951) ..................107 Arcand v. Evening Call Pub. Co., 567 F.2d 1163 (1st Cir. 1977) ..............................................113 Arroyo-Audifred v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., 527 F.3d 215 (1st Cir. 2008) ..................................132 Aulisio v. Baystate Health Sys., Inc., No. CIV.A. 11-30027-KPN, 2012 WL 3957985 (D. Mass. Sept. 7, 2012) .............................................................................5 AVX Corp. v. Cabot Corp., 252 F.R.D. 70 (D. Mass. 2008) ..................................................29, 95 Balintulo v. Ford Motor Co., 796 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015) ..................................................43, 125 BMW of N.A., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) .......................................................................115 Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 692 F.2d 189 (1st Cir. 1982) .....................111, 112 Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2006) ............................................24 Bruno & Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 633 F.2d 583 (1st Cir. 1980) ........................111 Caban-Rodriguez v. Jiminez-Perez, 558 F. App’x 1 (1st Cir. 2014) ..........................................132 Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios, 402 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2005) ...................................................117 Calzaturficio S.C.A.R.P.A. s.p.a. v. Fabiano Shoe Co., 201 F.R.D. 33 (D. Mass. 2001) ....................................................................................... passim Caraustar Indus., Inc. v. N. Georgia Converting, Inc., No. CIV 304CV187-H, 2006 WL 3751453 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 2006) .....................................................................108 vi Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 305 Filed 09/01/16 Page 8 of 150 Catrone v. Thoroughbred Racing Ass’n of N.A., Inc., 929 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1991) ..................129 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) .......................................................................34, 57 Chapman v. Ourisman Chevrolet Co., No. CIV.A. AW-08-2545, 2011 WL 2651867 (D. Md. July 1, 2011) ...............................................................................23 Church v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 95-30139-MAO, 1997 WL 129381 (D. Mass. Mar. 20, 1997) .................................................................126, 129 Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) .....................................................................110 Commerce Oil Ref. Corp. v. Miner, 303 F.2d 125 (1st Cir. 1962) ..................................................6 Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 403 F. Supp. 2d 1019 (W.D. Wash. 2005) ..............................119, 122 Corrie v Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) ....................................................119, 122 Corus Eng'g Steels Ltd. v. M/V ATLANTIC FORREST, No. CIV.A. 01-2076, 2002 WL 31308335 (E.D. La. Oct. 11, 2002) ........................................................................21 Davignon v. Celmmey, 322 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003) .............................................................103, 104 Dixon v. Bankhead, No. 4:00CV344-WS, 2000 WL 33175440 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2000).......................................................................................................103 Doe v. Drummond Co., 782 F.3d 576 (11th Cir. 2015) ................................................................33 Doe v. Drummond Co., No. 7:09-cv-01041-RDO, 2009 WL 9056091 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 9, 2009) ................................ ................................ ..............117 Doe v. Exxon Mobile Corp. , 69 F. Supp. 3d 75 (D.D.C. 2014 ) ................................ ...................120 Dresser Indus., Inc., Waukesha Engine Div. v. Gradall Co. , 965 F.2d 1442 (7th Cir. 1992) ................................ ................................ ............................... 109 Dynamic Image Techs., Inc. v. United States , 221 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2000) ................................ ..16 Edwards v. Princess Cruise Lines, LTD , 471 F. Supp. 2d 1027 (N.D. Cal. 2007). .......................57 Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd. , 291 F.R.D. 297 (N.D. Iowa 2013) ............24 Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd , 762 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2014) ............101 FDIC v. Hulsey, 22 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir. 1994) ................................ ................................ .........101 vii Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 305 Filed 09/01/16 Page 9 of 150 Ferrara v. Ballisteri & DiMaio, Inc., 105 F.R.D. 147 (D. Mass. 1985)........................................28 First Data Merch. Servs. Corp. v. SecurityMetrics, Inc., No. CIV.A RDB-12-2568, 2014 WL 6871581 (D. Md. Dec. 3, 2014) ............................................................................23 Fleming v. Dane, 304 Mass. 46, 22 N.E.2d 609 (Mass. 1939) ..................................................133 Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc,. 194 F.3d 505 (1999) .............................1. 10, 111, 112 Freddie v. Martin Transport, Ltd,. 428 F. App’x 801 (10th Cir. 2011) .......................................84 Gentek Bldg. Prod., Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., No. 1:02CV00013, 2005 WL 6778678 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 2005 )............................................................1. 02, 105 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc,. 418 U.S. 323 (1974) .....................................................................112 Grzelak v. Calumet Pub. Co,. 543 F.2d 579 (7th Cir. 1975) ......................................................114 GTE Prod. Corp. v. Gee, 115 F.R.D. 67 (D. Mass. 1987) ...........................................................1. 3 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) ..............................................................................124 Harte-Hanks Commc'ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989) .........................................114 Haseotes v. Abacab Int'l Computers, Inc,. 120 F.R.D. 12 (D. Mass. 1988) .................................83 Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 1996) ...................................................103, 104 Hitachi, Ltd. V. AmTRAN Tech. Co. Ltd,. No. C 05-2301 CRB, 2006 WL 2038248 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ....................................................................................29 Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwel,l 485 U.S. 46 (1988) .............................................................1. 10 Ierardi v. Lorillard, Inc., No. CIV. A. 90-7049, 1991 WL 158911 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 1991) ..........................................................................16, 22 Ierardi v. Lorillard, Inc., No. CIV. A. 90-7049, 1991 WL 66799 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 15, 1991) .......................................................................................................22 Infinity Fluids, Corp. v. Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc, .No. CV 14-40089-TSH, 2015 WL 4498069 (D. Mass. July 23, 2015 .)........................................................................16 In re S. African Apartheid Litig., 617 F. Supp. 2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ...................................124 I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) ..............................................................1. 20, 121 viii Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 305 Filed 09/01/16 Page 10 of 150 John Deaudette, Inc. v. Sentry Ins. A Mutual Co., 94 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D. Mass. 1999) ................................................................................129, 130 Kadar Corp. v. Milbury, 549 F.2d 230 (1st Cir. 1977) ................................................................131 Kinetico, Inc. v. Indep. Ohio Nail Co., 19 Ohio App. 3d 26, 482 N.E.2d 1345 (1984) ........................................................................................................105 King v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 117 F.R.D. 2 (D.D.C. 1987) 28 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) ............................................. passim Klonoski v. Mahlab, 156 F.3d 255 (1st Cir. 1998) ........................................................................29 Kurker v. Hill, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 184, 689 N.E.2d 833 (1998) .................................................133 Leveque v. Ojala, No. 20034485, 2005 WL 3721859 (Mass. Super. Dec. 8, 2005) ...................131 Limone v. United States, 497 F. Supp. 2d 143 (D. Mass. 2007) .................................131, 133, 135 Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of Am., Local 114, 383 U.S. 53 (1966) ...........................111 Little v. City of N. Miami, 805 F.2d 962 (11th Cir. 1986) ..........................................................101 Mahoney v. Kempton, 142 F.R.D. 32 (D. Mass. 1992) .................................................................28 Mamani v. Berzain, 654 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2011) ..................................................................123 Mastafa v. Chevron Corp., 770 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2014) ...................................................... passim McKinney v. Reassure Am. Life Ins. Co., No. 06-CIV-271-RAW, 2006 WL 3228791 (Nov. 2, 2006) ...............................................................................................103 Micromuse, Inc. v. Micromuse, PLC, 304 F. Supp. 2d 202 (D. Mass. 2004) .............................129 Mikolinski v. Burt Reynolds Prod. Co., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 895, 409 N.E.2d 1324 (1980).........................................................................................................101 Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.) v. Puerto Rico Water Res. Auth., 93 F.R.D. 62 (D.P.R. 1981) ..................14 Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) ........................................................33 Mujica v. AirScan Inc., 771 F.3d 580 (9th Cir. 2014) .............................................................35, 45 New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ................................................................ passim ix