Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/03/2020 05:47 PM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Vargas,Deputy Clerk

1 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

WILLIAM ISAACSON (pro hac vice pending)
2 wisaacson@bsfllp.com
JONATHAN SHERMAN (pro hac vice pending)
3 jsherman@bsfllp.com
1401 New York Ave., NW
4 Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
5 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131

6 ARWEN R. JOHNSON, State Bar No. 247583

ajohnson@bsfllp.com
7 725 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-5524
8 Telephone: (213) 629-9040
Facsimile: (213) 629-9022
9
L L P

JOSEPH F. KROETSCH (pro hac vice pending)

10 jkroetsch@bsfllp.com
F L E X N E R

333 Main Street

11 Armonk, New York 10504
Telephone: (914) 749-8200
12 Facsimile: (914) 749-8300

13 Attorneys for Defendants JEFFREY BEZOS and

GAVIN DE BECKER
S C H I L L E R

14
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
15
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
16
MICHAEL SANCHEZ, an individual, Case No. 20STCV04212
B O I E S

17 Hon. John P. Doyle, Dept. 58

Plaintiff,
18 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF
v. DEFENDANTS JEFFREY BEZOS AND
19 GAVIN DE BECKER TO STRIKE
JEFFREY PRESTON BEZOS, an individual, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT PURSUANT
20 and GAVIN DE BECKER, an individual, TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF
21 Defendants. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
DECLARATIONS OF ARWEN JOHNSON
22 AND GAVIN DE BECKER WITH
EXHIBITS
23
Date: June 16, 2020
24 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: 58
25

26 Action Filed: January 31, 2020

Trial Date: None set
27
Reservation ID: 344248376713
28

16
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on June 16, 2020, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
3 this matter may be heard, in Department 58 of the above-captioned Court, located at 111 North

4 Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Defendants Jeffrey Bezos and Gavin de Becker

5 (“Defendants”) will and hereby do move this Court to strike Plaintiff Michael Sanchez’s

6 (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Sanchez”) Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

7 section 425.16.

8 This Motion is brought on the grounds that: (1) Plaintiff Michael Sanchez’s claims all

9 arise from activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute; and (2) Mr. Sanchez cannot carry his
L L P

10 statutory burden to establish a probability that he will prevail on any of his claims. Defendants
F L E X N E R

11 expressly reserve and do not waive their right to seek by separate motion an award of costs and

12 attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c).

13 As set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Arwen Johnson, Defendants set the
S C H I L L E R

14 hearing on this Motion on the first date available on this Court’s calendar for which counsel did

15 not have a preexisting conflict. Declaration of Arwen Johnson, ¶ 2.

16 This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points
B O I E S

17 and Authorities, the Declarations of Arwen Johnson and Gavin de Becker with Exhibits thereto

18 filed concurrently herewith, all of the pleadings and other documents on file in this case, all other
19 matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, and any further argument or evidence that

20 may be received by the Court at the hearing.

21

22 DATED: February 3, 2020 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

23 By: /s/ William Isaacson

24 WILLIAM ISAACSON
Attorneys for Defendants JEFFREY BEZOS and
25 GAVIN DE BECKER

26
27

28

-2-
16
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...................................................................8
3
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................8
4
II. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................10
5
A. Mr. Sanchez Knowingly Helped the Enquirer Break the News Story. ....................11
6
B. According to Multiple News Reports, Documents and Law Enforcement
7 Sources Confirmed that Mr. Sanchez is the Source of Information and
Photos Provided to the Enquirer...............................................................................12
8
C. Mr. Sanchez Filed this Action. .................................................................................13
9
L L P

D. The News Articles That Mr. Sanchez Alleges Accuse Him of Leaking Nude
10 Photos Contain No Such Statements. .......................................................................14
F L E X N E R

11 E. The Public Record Nowhere Contains Any Accusation by Defendants that

Mr. Sanchez Leaked Nude Photos. ..........................................................................15
12
III. CALIFORNIA’S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE REQUIRES THAT MICHAEL
13 SANCHEZ’S ENTIRE COMPLAINT BE STRICKEN. .....................................................15
S C H I L L E R

14 A. The Complaint Assails Defendants’ Protected Activity. .........................................16

15 1. The Alleged Statements Were Made in a Public Forum About an

Issue of Public Interest. ................................................................................16
16
2. The Alleged Statements Were Also Made in Furtherance of the
B O I E S

17 Exercise of Free Speech. ..............................................................................17

18 B. Mr. Sanchez Cannot Establish He Will Probably Prevail on the Merits of

His Claims. ...............................................................................................................18
19
1. Mr. Sanchez Has Not Pled and Cannot Prove His Defamation
20 Claim. ...........................................................................................................18

21 (a) Mr. Sanchez Has Failed to Allege, and Cannot Show, That
the Defendants Published Any Allegedly Defamatory
22 Statement. .........................................................................................18

23 (b) Even If Defendants Had Made the Alleged Statements, They

Would Not Be Actionable. ...............................................................19
24
(i) The Alleged Statements Do Not Materially Differ
25 From the Undisputed Truth: Mr. Sanchez Leaked
His Sister and Bezos’ Personal Information to the
26 Enquirer. ...............................................................................19
27 (ii) Defendants Lack Fault For Allegedly Saying Mr.
Sanchez Leaked Photos that the Enquirer
28 Acknowledged He Leaked. ..................................................20

-3-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 2. Michael Sanchez’s “Emotional Distress” Claim Also Cannot be
Used to Avoid the Anti-SLAPP Statute and Cannot be Pled or
2 Proved...........................................................................................................21

3 IV. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................22

9
L L P

10
F L E X N E R

11

12

13
S C H I L L E R

14

15

16
B O I E S

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28

-4-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
2 Cases

3 Ampex Corp. v. Cargle,

4 128 Cal.App.4th 1569 (2005) ........................................................................................... 20, 21, 22

5 Annette F. v. Sharon S.,

119 Cal.App.4th 1146 (2004) ....................................................................................................... 20
6
Balzaga v. Fox News Network, LLC,
7 173 Cal.App.4th 1325 (2009) ....................................................................................................... 16
8
Baral v. Schnitt,
9 1 Cal.5th 376 (2016) ..................................................................................................................... 16
L L P

10 Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Morales,

F L E X N E R

20 Cal.App.5th 924 (2018) ........................................................................................................... 16

11

12 Blatty v. New York Times Co.,

42 Cal.3d 1033 (1986) .................................................................................................................. 18
13
S C H I L L E R

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc.,

14 466 U.S. 485 (1984) ..................................................................................................................... 21
15
Braun v. Chronicle Publ’g Co.,
16 52 Cal.App.4th 1036 (1997) ......................................................................................................... 17
B O I E S

17 Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity,

19 Cal.4th 1106 (1999) ................................................................................................................. 15
18
Christensen v. Superior Court,
19
54 Cal.3d 868 (1991) .................................................................................................................... 22
20
Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim,
21 42 Cal.App.4th 628 (1996) ........................................................................................................... 17
22 Cochran v. Cochran,

23 65 Cal.App.4th 488 (1998) ........................................................................................................... 22

24 Copp v. Paxton,
45 Cal.App.4th 829 (1996) ........................................................................................................... 20
25
Equilon Enters. v. Consumer Cause, Inc.,
26 29 Cal.4th 53 (2002) ..................................................................................................................... 17
27
Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc.,
28 42 Cal.3d 234 (1986) .................................................................................................................... 22

-5-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1
Flatley v. Mauro,
2 39 Cal.4th 299 (2006) ................................................................................................................... 15
3
Gilbert v. Sykes,
4 147 Cal.App.4th 13 (2007) ......................................................................................... 18, 19, 20, 21

5 Gill v. Hearst Publ’g Co.,

40 Cal.2d 224 (1953) .................................................................................................................... 17
6
Grenier v. Taylor,
7
234 Cal.App.4th 471 (2015) ................................................................................................... 20, 21
8
Harkonen v. Fleming,
9 880 F.Supp. 2d 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ......................................................................................... 16
L L P

10 Hustler Magazine v. Falwell,

F L E X N E R

11 485 U.S. 46 (1988) ....................................................................................................................... 21

12 Ingram v. Flippo,
74 Cal.App.4th 1280 (1999) ......................................................................................................... 18
13
S C H I L L E R

Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.,

14 501 U.S. 496 (1991) ..................................................................................................................... 19
15
Navellier v. Sletten,
16 29 Cal.4th 82 (2002) ..................................................................................................................... 16
B O I E S

17 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,

376 U.S. 254 (1964) ..................................................................................................................... 21
18
19 Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula,
159 Cal.App.4th 1027 (2008) ................................................................................................. 16, 17
20
Paterno v. Superior Court,
21 163 Cal.App.4th 1342 (2008) ....................................................................................................... 19
22
Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig,
23 154 Cal.App.4th 347 (2007) ......................................................................................................... 18

24 Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress,

214 F. Supp. 3d 808 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .......................................................................................... 22
25
Reader’s Digest Ass’n v. Superior Court,
26
37 Cal.3d 244 (1984) .............................................................................................................. 19, 21
27
Savage v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.,
28 21 Cal.App.4th 434 (1993) ........................................................................................................... 20

-6-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 Seelig v. Infinity Broad. Corp.,
97 Cal.App.4th 798 (2002) ..................................................................................................... 17, 22
2
Sipple v. Foundation for Nat’l Progress,
3
71 Cal.App.4th 226 (1999) ........................................................................................................... 15
4
Smith v. Maldonado,
5 72 Cal.App.4th 637 (1999) ........................................................................................................... 19
6 Sonoma Media Investments, LLC v. Superior Court,
34 Cal.App.5th 24 (2019) ............................................................................................................. 17
7

8 St. Amant v. Thompson,

390 U.S. 727 (1968) ..................................................................................................................... 21
9
L L P

Werner v. Times-Mirror Co.,

10 193 Cal.App.2d 111 (1961) .......................................................................................................... 17
F L E X N E R

11
Wong v. Jing,
12 189 Cal.App.4th 1354 (2010) ................................................................................................. 18, 22

13 Statutes
S C H I L L E R

14 Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 .................................................................................................................. 9

15
Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(a) ........................................................................................................ 9, 15
16
Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(3)-(4) ................................................................................................. 16
B O I E S

17
Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(3) ....................................................................................................... 16
18
19 Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(4) ....................................................................................................... 17

20 Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(b)(1) ....................................................................................................... 10

21 Evid. Code § 452(h) ........................................................................................................................ 18

22
Other Authorities
23
Robert Sack, Sack On Defamation: Libel, Slander And Related Problems § 16:2.3[A][2] (5th Ed.
24 2017) ............................................................................................................................................ 10

25

26
27

28

-7-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 This is a case in which Plaintiff Michael Sanchez secretly leaked his sister’s most private

4 information and communications to the National Enquirer after it paid him $200,000. The

5 information Michael Sanchez leaked included personal communications that his sister Lauren

6 received from Defendant Jeffrey Bezos. Mr. Sanchez is now bringing this action to gain money

7 from Mr. Bezos, the very person whose information he sold to the National Enquirer, and his head

8 of security. Mr. Sanchez claims he is doing so because he is now unhappy about news coverage

9 concerning the media maelstrom that he helped cause after receiving the $200,000 and betraying
L L P

10 his sister.
F L E X N E R

11 In January 2019, the National Enquirer published a 12-page tabloid story about Mr. Bezos

12 and his relationship with Lauren Sanchez that “included reports about explicit text messages” and

13 “leaked photographs.” Compl. ¶¶ 21-22. Later in correspondence that Mr. Bezos made public,
S C H I L L E R

14 American Media Inc. (“AMI”), the publisher of the Enquirer, revealed that it possessed intimate

15 photos and more personal text messages of Mr. Bezos that it would publish unless Mr. Bezos and

16 his security chief, Gavin de Becker, did not cease their investigation of the leaks to the Enquirer.
B O I E S

17 On February 7, 2019, in a widely publicized blog post, Mr. Bezos made public the correspondence

18 and demands of AMI “rather than capitulate to extortion and blackmail.” Declaration of Arwen
19 Johnson (“Johnson Decl.”), Ex. 1.

20 Following the Enquirer publication, Mr. Sanchez sought to and became a central actor in

21 kicking off worldwide public discussion about the sister he betrayed and Mr. Bezos—and in

22 particular, the leaks to the Enquirer. Mr. Sanchez has exploited his own leaks to the Enquirer by

23 seeking attention from the press, inserting himself into story after story.

24 Since the Enquirer publication and Mr. Bezos’ blogpost, the news media has investigated

25 how Mr. Bezos’ private texts were obtained by the tabloid. The press also has reported on an

26 investigation into AMI’s conduct by Southern District of New York prosecutors and the FBI, an
27 investigation that has, according to Mr. Sanchez, included a raid of his home. Compl. ¶ 41. In the

28 year since the Enquirer story, dozens of news organizations have reported on who disclosed Mr.

-8-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 Bezos’ texts to the Enquirer—reporting at the heart of the First Amendment. This reporting has

2 exposed the appalling truth that Michael Sanchez betrayed his sister by selling her out to the

3 Enquirer by providing it with personal information and text messages after he was paid $200,000.

4 News reports pointing to Mr. Sanchez as a source of leaks to the Enquirer story have

5 explained they are based on multiple sources, including contracts and other documents,

6 information uncovered in law enforcement investigations, and even multiple statements by AMI.

7 As AMI publicly stated, “it was Michael Sanchez who tipped the National Enquirer off to the

8 affair on Sept. 10, 2018, and over the course of four months provided all of the materials for our

9 investigation.” Johnson Decl., Ex. 2 (emphasis added). Many news outlets also have reported that
L L P

10 Mr. Sanchez provided the Enquirer with personal photos. At first, Mr. Sanchez repeatedly lied
F L E X N E R

11 and denied his involvement with the Enquirer, but now acknowledges he is responsible for

12 providing private information and texts to the Enquirer and receiving a $200,000 payment, though

13 he denies providing all the photos.

S C H I L L E R

14 Extortion rears its head again in this lawsuit, this time not only aimed at Defendants but

15 also directly threatening speech protected under the First Amendment. Mr. Sanchez’s Complaint

16 seeks money from Defendants Jeffrey Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, and Gavin de Becker, a leading
B O I E S

17 expert on the protection of public figures, in the aftermath of news media reporting on what Mr.

18 Sanchez did to his sister for a tabloid story. By filing this lawsuit, Mr. Sanchez hopes to put
19 himself back on the front pages and extract money from Defendants by leveraging the current

20 media environment to harass them. But no matter what Michael Sanchez says or how many times

21 he repeats himself, at the heart of his Complaint lies the same public controversy he helped

22 generate and has tried to exploit—and from which he surreptitiously earned $200,000.

23 California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, was enacted to bring

24 an early end to this type of meritless litigation abuse. The statute provides that it “shall be

25 construed broadly,” to address the “disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the

26 valid exercise of . . . freedom of speech.” Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(a) (emphasis added). Mr.
27 Sanchez’s claims arise from and would punish (i) speech and reporting about matters of public

28 interest and (ii) conduct that furthers it, notably cooperation between the press and sources. This

-9-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 expressive conduct “qualifies for protection under the anti-SLAPP law,” and the “special motion

2 to strike will be granted ‘unless the court determines [Mr. Sanchez] has established that there is a

3 probability that [he] will prevail on the claim.’” Robert Sack, SACK ON DEFAMATION: LIBEL,

4 SLANDER AND RELATED PROBLEMS § 16:2.3[A][2] (5th ed. 2017) (quoting § 425.16(b)(1)).

5 As we demonstrate below, Mr. Sanchez cannot prevail. Multiple sources cited in the

6 Complaint and by the media over many months show that Mr. Sanchez leaked personal

7 information and materials, including private text messages and photos, to the Enquirer. Mr.

8 Sanchez believes it is important that he did not, according to him, specifically disclose nude

9 photos, a distinction of no consequence under the First Amendment or to the media articles
L L P

10 discussing his leaking of private information and betrayal of his sister. Further, neither Defendant
F L E X N E R

11 has ever accused Mr. Sanchez of leaking nude photos specifically—and not once does the

12 Complaint allege an instance where either Defendant made this accusation. (The same is true for

13 the other alleged defamations in the Complaint.) The articles cited in the Complaint also do not
S C H I L L E R

14 say that Mr. Sanchez leaked nude photos—as opposed to his leaking of every other type of

15 personal information belonging to his sister and Mr. Bezos. Only very recent articles not cited in

16 the Complaint come close to making statements about photos, and they rely on law enforcement
B O I E S

17 information, AMI statements, documents, and other sources.

18 The source of the information published concerning Mr. Sanchez’s leaks to the Enquirer
19 was not Defendants, but no matter who was the source of this information, the statements

20 themselves are true and constitutionally protected given the facts of the leaks by Mr. Sanchez, and

21 there can be no fault under the First Amendment for making such statements to news reporters.

22 II. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

23 On January 9, 2019, the Enquirer reported that Mr. Bezos was in a relationship with Ms.

24 Sanchez. Johnson Decl., Ex. 3. The following day, it published a 12-page story that quoted from

25 “explicit texts” containing private communications from Mr. Bezos to Ms. Sanchez. Id., Ex. 4.

26 The 12-page story included photos of the couple. Id. The Enquirer also referenced an
27 unpublished “cache of lewd selfies,” some of which the Enquirer described in detail. Id., Ex. 5.

28 AMI’s Chief Content Officer, Dylan Howard, also emailed Mr. Bezos’s attorneys on February 5,

-10-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 2019 with detailed descriptions of the private “photos obtained during our newsgathering.” Id.,

2 Ex. 1. More than a year later, the Enquirer has not published these photos, and no such photos

3 have been published anywhere.

4 A. Mr. Sanchez Knowingly Helped the Enquirer Break the News Story.

5 Michael Sanchez’s betrayal of his sister soon became the subject of widespread reporting.

6 On February 10, 2019, the Daily Beast reported that “multiple sources inside AMI” confirmed that

7 Mr. Sanchez had betrayed his sister and “supplied the couple’s racy texts” to the Enquirer. Id., Ex.

8 6. Mr. Sanchez initially lied to the media and denied leaking information and personal texts to the

9 Enquirer. Id., Exs. 7, 8. The Wall Street Journal followed on March 18, 2019, reporting that Mr.
L L P

10 Sanchez “sold the billionaire’s secrets for $200,000 to the Enquirer’s publisher.” Id., Ex. 9.
F L E X N E R

11 Michael Sanchez eventually admitted he helped the Enquirer break its story—“He also

12 admitted that what he did could be seen as a betrayal of his sister and of Bezos.” Id., Ex. 10. The

13 only thing he has denied was providing nude photos to the Enquirer—which neither Bezos nor de
S C H I L L E R

14 Becker has accused him of doing. For example, in a Vanity Fair interview published on February

15 14, 2019, Mr. Sanchez denied he had anything to do with a leak of intimate photos, but declined to

16 comment on whether he had provided intimate text messages, instead stating: “I’m not saying I
B O I E S

17 didn’t do something.” Id., Ex. 11. On March 19, 2019, Fox News reported, “Sanchez told me he

18 did cooperate with the tabloid.” Id., Ex. 10. The same day, Page Six reported that “Michael
19 Sanchez, the brother of Jeff Bezos’ lover, confirmed that he made a ‘deal with the devil’ and

20 helped the National Enquirer break the sensational story on Bezos and Lauren Sanchez.” Id., Ex.

21 12. After Michael Sanchez’s “deal with the devil” became known, Lauren Sanchez stopped all

22 communications with her brother due to the betrayal. Id., Ex. 13.

23 On March 31, 2019, Enquirer owner AMI issued a public statement saying, in part:

24 American Media has, and continues to, refute the unsubstantiated claims that the materials
for our report were acquired with the help of anyone other than the single source who first
25 brought them to us. The fact of the matter is, it was Michael Sanchez who tipped the
National Enquirer off to the affair on Sept. 10, 2018, and over the course of four months
26
provided all of the materials for our investigation. His continued efforts to discuss and
27 falsely represent our reporting, and his role in it, has waived any source confidentiality.
There was no involvement by any other third party whatsoever.
28

-11-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 Id., Ex. 2 (emphasis added). Likewise, on January 24, 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that

2 a spokesperson for AMI said, “In September of 2018, Michael Sanchez began providing all

3 materials and information to our reporters.” Id., Ex. 14.

4 Michael Sanchez admitted the truth of this in a draft Complaint he recently sent to

5 Defendants, while giving excuses for his conduct:

6 Mr. Sanchez opted to get ahead of the story to limit the backlash against Mr. Bezos and
Ms. Sanchez, and to protect Ms. Sanchez’s parents and children, exactly as he has done
7 many times in the past. Mr. Sanchez entered into a confidential deal to cooperate
strategically with AMI, the publisher of The National Enquirer, with whom Mr. Sanchez
8
and Ms. Sanchez had cooperated, without money changing hands, for over twenty years.
9 This deal included a Non-Disclosure Agreement and specified Mr. Sanchez would
L L P

provide access to certain information confirming the relationship. Notably, the deal
10 prevented The National Enquirer from publishing any screenshots Mr. Sanchez
F L E X N E R

provided, and gave Mr. Sanchez a significant amount of control over the timing and
11 ability to shape and soften the story during the drafting process. Mr. Sanchez’s motive was
to control the timing and narrative of the inevitable scandal coverage in the press, despite
12
false claims that his motive was the mere $200,000 from the AMI contract.
13
Declaration of Gavin de Becker (“de Becker Decl.”), ¶ 2, Ex. 1 (¶¶ 14-15) (emphasis added). Mr.
S C H I L L E R

14
Sanchez’s current Complaint also admits that “Mr. Sanchez agreed to corroborate the existence of
15
the relationship under conditions that would help Mr. Sanchez manage the timing of the story . . . .
16
This deal included a non-disclosure agreement, prevented The National Enquirer from publishing
B O I E S

17
any screenshots Mr. Sanchez provided,” but did not prevent the Enquirer from publishing the
18
content of texts. Compl. ¶ 17.
19
B. According to Multiple News Reports, Documents and Law Enforcement Sources
20 Confirmed that Mr. Sanchez is the Source of Information and Photos Provided to
the Enquirer.
21
Multiple published news articles have reported that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
22
District of New York and the FBI are investigating the leaks of private materials to the Enquirer.
23
Johnson Decl., Exs. 14, 15. Mr. Sanchez reports the FBI raided his home as part of this
24
investigation. Compl. ¶ 41. News reports citing documents from the criminal investigation have
25
stated that Mr. Sanchez leaked private information, including photographs, to the Enquirer. The
26
New York Times reported: “Mr. Sanchez and American Media executed a nondisclosure
27
agreement on Oct. 18, 2018, ‘concerning certain information, photographs and text messages’. . .
28
according to a contract between the two parties reviewed by The New York Times.” Johnson
-12-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 Decl., Ex. 17. “After federal agents and prosecutors examined allegations of wrongdoing by

2 American Media in connection with the Bezos story last year, the company provided evidence

3 showing them that Ms. Sanchez had provided text messages and compromising photos of Mr.

4 Bezos to her brother, who passed them along to the tabloid, according to four people with

5 knowledge of the situation.” Id. (emphasis added).

6 The Wall Street Journal has similarly reported: “An October 2018 contract between Mr.

7 Sanchez and American Media, publisher of the National Enquirer, gave the company exclusive

8 rights to ‘certain information, photographs, and text messages documenting an affair between Jeff

9 Bezos and Lauren Sanchez.’” Id., Ex. 18.

L L P

10 C. Mr. Sanchez Filed this Action.

F L E X N E R

11 Wiping aside pages of unrelated slurs and accusations, Michael Sanchez’s Complaint boils

12 down to four defamatory assertions ostensibly about him (the “Alleged Statements” or the

13 “Statements”): (i) he leaked “graphic, nude photographs of Mr. Bezos,” (ii) he was “part of” a
S C H I L L E R

14 conspiracy between the Saudis and conservatives to “take down” Mr. Bezos, (iii) that he “stole,

15 then sold photographs” of his sister, and (iv) that he “shopped around” an untrue and defamatory

16 story about Mr. Bezos’ brother. Compl. ¶ 33.

B O I E S

17 The Complaint contains no allegations of any specific or quoted statement by Defendants

18 that Mr. Sanchez leaked nude photos of Mr. Bezos. There has not been a single report that has
19 included any such statement by Defendants, nor does the Complaint allege a single instance in

20 which Mr. Bezos made any public statements of any kind concerning Mr. Sanchez. The

21 Complaint also contains no allegations of any specific or quoted statement by Defendants to any

22 individual claiming that Mr. Sanchez was “part of” a conspiracy between the Saudis and

23 “conservatives” to “take down” Mr. Bezos; or that Mr. Sanchez “stole, then sold photographs” of

24 his sister; that Mr. Sanchez “shopped around” an untrue story about Mr. Bezos’ brother.”

25 For example, Paragraphs 27(a)-(g) of the Complaint purport to list specific allegations, but

26 offers not one instance of Defendants stating that Michael Sanchez leaked nude photos.
27 Paragraphs 27(b)-(f) do not reference nude photos at all; Paragraph 27(a) references only that

28 Michael Sanchez was interviewed and asked questions on the topic; and Paragraph 27(g) does not

-13-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 include any statement by either Defendant.1 Over and over, the paragraphs of the Complaint fail

2 to identify any instances of Defendants stating that Michael Sanchez leaked nude photos, and yet

3 that is Sanchez’s central claim. E.g., Compl. ¶¶ 26, 28 (no statements by Defendants).

4 D. The News Articles That Mr. Sanchez Alleges Accuse Him of Leaking Nude
Photos Contain No Such Statements.
5
The Complaint fabricates defamatory statements to manufacture a basis for a lawsuit. Mr.
6
Sanchez does this by inventing statements that are not anywhere within the materials he
7
cites. Though Mr. Sanchez alleges that at the end of January 2019, the Daily Beast published
8
articles naming “Mr. Sanchez as the supposed source who provided Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Bezos’s
9
L L P

graphic, nude photographs according to ‘Amazon Investigators’,” the articles said nothing of the
10
sort. Compl. ¶¶ 36, 39(a). The Daily Beast’s January 30, 2019 article does not even mention Mr.
F L E X N E R

11
Sanchez. Johnson Decl., Ex. 19. The article states only that “Jeff Bezos’ personal security team
12
has launched an investigation into how his text messages ended up in The National Enquirer.” Id.
13
(emphasis added).2 In its article the following day, the Daily Beast reported that “Jeff Bezos’ top
S C H I L L E R

14
personal security consultant has questioned his mistress’ brother as part of the probe into how the
15
couple’s text messages wound up in the hands of the National Enquirer.” Id., Ex. 20 (emphasis
16
added). Neither article includes the quote Mr. Sanchez invents in his Complaint, “Amazon
B O I E S

17
Investigators.” Id.; Compl. ¶ 25. The February 26, 2019 Washington Post article cited by the
18
Complaint, Compl. ¶ 28, does not mention photos and states: “Two people familiar with
19
discussions between Sanchez and the Enquirer confirmed a Daily Beast report that Sanchez
20
provided the tabloid with some of the couple’s texts.” Johnson Decl., Ex. 21.
21

22
1
23 The allegation in Paragraph 27(g) has changed through multiple drafts of the complaint
transmitted to Defendants. In the first draft complaint that Mr. Sanchez shared with Defendants,
24 he alleged that the Wall Street Journal’s reporter “contacted Mr. Sanchez to confirm he ‘provided
the sexually explicit pictures’ as told to her by Mr. de Becker.” De Becker Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1 at
25 ¶ 22(g)). Mr. Sanchez’s next law firm removed the phrase, “as told to her by Mr. de Becker.” Id.,

26 ¶ 3, Ex. 2 at ¶ 40(c)). The filed complaint repeats the original allegation. Compl. ¶ 27(g).
Regardless, this invented allegation contains no actual statement by Defendants.
27 2 Defendant de Becker, who is referenced in the article, has earned three Presidential appointments

28 and is a bestselling author of books and articles on the prediction and prevention of violence, as
well as an occasional journalistic commentator and writer of editorials. De Becker Decl., ¶ 1.
-14-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 E. The Public Record Nowhere Contains Any Accusation by Defendants that Mr.
Sanchez Leaked Nude Photos.
2
The Complaint does not cite any instances in which either Defendant accused Mr. Sanchez
3
of leaking nude photos to the Enquirer. Mr. Bezos has not ever spoken publicly about Plaintiff,
4
and has spoken publicly about the National Enquirer on only one occasion, in his February 7, 2019
5
online Medium post describing AMI’s attempt to extort him. Johnson Decl., Ex. 1. Mr. de Becker
6
has written publicly about the Enquirer only once, in an op-ed about his investigation into how the
7
Enquirer obtained Mr. Bezos’ text messages. De Becker Decl., Ex. 3. There, he raised the
8
possibility of Saudi involvement in a hack, and reported that Lauren Sanchez did not leak any
9
L L P

information to the Enquirer, but he did not accuse Michael Sanchez of leaking nude photos. Id.
10
Press coverage of Mr. de Becker’s investigation consistently reported he was investigating how
F L E X N E R

11
the Enquirer acquired the leaked text messages—not photos. Johnson Decl., Exs. 22, 23.
12
Although AMI and numerous sources have identified Mr. Sanchez as a leaker of photos,
13
neither Mr. Bezos nor Mr. de Becker made such statements. To the contrary, Mr. de Becker wrote
S C H I L L E R

14
in his op-ed, “clearly and obviously, that the [Enquirer’s] initial information came from other
15
channels—another source or method.” De Becker Decl., Ex. 3. He further wrote “Reality is
16
complicated, and can’t always be boiled down to a simple narrative like ‘the brother did it.’” Id.
B O I E S

17
III. CALIFORNIA’S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE REQUIRES THAT MICHAEL
18 SANCHEZ’S ENTIRE COMPLAINT BE STRICKEN.
19 Section 425.16 provides recourse when a defendant, as is the case here, faces a retaliatory

20 lawsuit “brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of

21 speech and petition for the redress of grievances.” Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(a). “These meritless

22 suits, referred to under the acronym SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation, are

23 subject to a special motion to strike,” Sipple v. Foundation for Nat’l Progress, 71 Cal.App.4th

24 226, 234 (1999), to ensure they end “early and without great cost to the SLAPP target.” Flatley v.

25 Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299, 312 (2006). The statute provides that it “shall be construed broadly.”

26 Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(a); Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal.4th 1106,
27 1112, 1121-22 (1999).

28 Under section 425.16, the defendant has the burden to make “a threshold showing that the

-15-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity.” Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th

2 82, 88 (2002). If the defendant meets that burden, the court must strike the challenged causes of

3 action unless the plaintiff meets a burden to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, a probability of

4 prevailing on the claim. Id. To do so, a plaintiff must “demonstrate a probability that he will

5 prevail on each element” of the claim. Harkonen v. Fleming, 880 F.Supp. 2d 1071, 1078 (N.D.

6 Cal. 2012); see also Balzaga v. Fox News Network, LLC, 173 Cal.App.4th 1325, 1337 (2009)

7 (defamation claim stricken where “plaintiffs’ burden in opposing an anti-SLAPP motion was to

8 substantiate each element of their cause of action”). If found to be legally insufficient or factually

9 unsubstantiated, the court will strike the causes of action. Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Morales, 20
L L P

10 Cal.App.5th 924, 934 (2018) (citing Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 (2016)).
F L E X N E R

11 A. The Complaint Assails Defendants’ Protected Activity.

12 To satisfy the first step of the inquiry, Defendants need only make a prima facie showing

13 that Mr. Sanchez’s claims arise from a “written or oral statement” made “in a place open to the
S C H I L L E R

14 public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest,” or in furtherance of the

15 exercise of “the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of

16 public interest.” Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(3)-(4). They easily make this showing.
B O I E S

17 1. The Alleged Statements Were Made in a Public Forum About an Issue

of Public Interest.
18
Mr. Sanchez’s claims fall directly under section 425.16(e)(3) because they concern alleged
19
statements to the press about issues that received extensive media coverage. Whether or not such
20
statements occurred,3 Defendants’ alleged statements to “several major news and media outlets”
21
satisfy the public forum requirement. Compl. ¶ 34; see id., ¶¶ 40-41 (same alleged conduct is
22
basis of emotional distress claim). This includes statements made to the press in connection with
23
the publication of a news report, and also covers writing an op-ed piece, as Mr. de Becker did.
24
E.g., Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1032, 1036-39 (2008) (interview given
25
to a magazine protected under public forum analysis); Sonoma Media Investments, LLC v.
26
27
3
28 For the first prong of the inquiry, it is irrelevant whether Defendants dispute making any of the
statements that form the basis of his claims. Bel Air Internet, 20 Cal.App.5th at 939.
-16-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 Superior Court, 34 Cal.App.5th 24, 33-34 (2019) (source of articles published in newspaper was

2 protected under public forum analysis).

3 The public interest requirement, “like all of section 425.16, is to be construed broadly.”

4 Seelig v. Infinity Broad. Corp., 97 Cal.App.4th 798, 808 (2002) (quotation marks omitted). This

5 case involves public discussion and news reports of important issues about the leaking of personal

6 information to tabloid journalists in exchange for money. But important issues are unnecessary:

7 California courts have defined “public interest” quite literally, as “any issue in which the public is

8 interested.” Nygard, 159 Cal.App.4th at 1042 (emphasis omitted). Topics of public interest,

9 including the lives of the rich and famous and other public figures, have routinely qualified. Id.
L L P

10 (“tabloid” issues held to be protected by the anti-SLAPP statute). The extensive media coverage
F L E X N E R

11 on this topic, cited repeatedly in the Complaint, satisfies this standard. Church of Scientology v.

12 Wollersheim, 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 651 (1996) (public interest “as evidenced by media coverage”),

13 disapproved on other grounds by Equilon Enters. v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (2002).
S C H I L L E R

14 Mr. Sanchez himself sparked interest in these issues with his self-described “deal with the

15 devil” to help the Enquirer break the story. As a result, he played an integral role in fueling the

16 public’s interest. E.g., Werner v. Times-Mirror Co., 193 Cal.App.2d 111, 117 (1961) (a “person
B O I E S

17 may, by his own activities or by the force of circumstances, become a public personage”); Seelig,

18 97 Cal.App.4th at 807-08 (“By having chosen to participate as a [TV] contestant . . . plaintiff

19 voluntarily subjected herself to inevitable scrutiny and potential ridicule”).

20 2. The Alleged Statements Were Also Made in Furtherance of the

Exercise of Free Speech.
21
Defendants also satisfy the alternate “free speech” requirement of section 425.16(e)(4).
22
News reporting constitutes “conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of
23
free speech,” and is thus entitled to anti-SLAPP protection. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(4);
24
Braun v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 52 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1045 (1997) (“news reporting activity is
25
‘free speech’”); see also Gill v. Hearst Publ’g Co., 40 Cal.2d 224, 229-30 (1953) (“the
26
constitutional guaranties of freedom of expression apply with equal force to [a] publication
27
whether it be a news report or an entertainment feature”).
28

-17-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 B. Mr. Sanchez Cannot Establish He Will Probably Prevail on the Merits of His
Claims.
2
Because Defendants have made their threshold showing that the anti-SLAPP statute
3
applies, the burden shifts to Mr. Sanchez to prove that he will probably prevail on the merits of his
4
claims. He must demonstrate he has both “stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim.”
5
Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig, 154 Cal.App.4th 347, 361-62 (2007). He cannot do so.
6
1. Mr. Sanchez Has Not Pled and Cannot Prove His Defamation Claim.
7
Defamation requires a plaintiff to plead and prove “(1) a publication that is (2) false,
8
(3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and [which] (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special
9
L L P

damage.” Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369 (2010) (emphasis added). Because Mr.
10
F L E X N E R

Sanchez has both (i) pled a legally insufficient defamation claim and (ii) can have no evidence
11
sufficient to establish a prima facie case for his defamation claim, it must be stricken.
12
(a) Mr. Sanchez Has Failed to Allege, and Cannot Show, That the
13 Defendants Published Any Allegedly Defamatory Statement.
S C H I L L E R

Mr. Sanchez’s defamation claim fails the most basic of requirements: it fails to identify
14

15 any instance in which Defendants, or even any news report, published or made any of the alleged

16 statements about him. Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 33 (2007) (dismissing action where

17 the allegedly defamatory publication did not contain the statement alleged). Mr. Sanchez does not
B O I E S

18 plead a single fact showing that either Defendant said that he was part of a “conservative-Saudi
19 conspiracy to take down Bezos,” that he stole and sold photographs of his sister, or that he
shopped around a false and defamatory story about Mr. Bezos’ brother. Compl. ¶ 33(ii-iv). The
20

21 only statements alleged about Mr. Sanchez shopping a false and defamatory story about Mr.

22 Bezos’ brother were allegedly made by Mr. Sanchez’s mother, not Defendants. Id. ¶ 30(e).
With respect to whether Mr. Sanchez “leaked graphic, nude photographs to the Enquirer,”
23

24 the allegations again lack any specific statements. And even the general allegation is
4
25 unambiguously contradicted by the documents incorporated by reference in his Complaint. This

26
27 4
For a demurrer, the Court may take judicial notice of this article because it was referenced in the
28 Complaint. Blatty v. New York Times Co., 42 Cal.3d 1033, 1046 (1986) (citing Evid. Code
§ 452(h)); e.g., Ingram v. Flippo, 74 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1285 n.3 (1999).
-18-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 is a fabrication: the articles do not say what Mr. Sanchez claims they say. Supra pp. 13-15.

2 (b) Even If Defendants Had Made the Alleged Statements, They

Would Not Be Actionable.
3
Even if Mr. Sanchez could meet his burden to establish that either Defendant made the
4
statements—which he could not—they still would not be actionable because (i) the statements
5
were substantially true and (ii) Defendants would reasonably believe the statements were true.
6
(i) The Alleged Statements Do Not Materially Differ From
7 the Undisputed Truth: Mr. Sanchez Leaked His Sister
and Bezos’ Personal Information to the Enquirer.
8
The allegedly defamatory statements here are substantially true and Mr. Sanchez thus
9
L L P

cannot meet his burden on falsity. Smith v. Maldonado, 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 647 n. 5 (1999) (the
10
F L E X N E R

First Amendment places the burden of proving falsity on the plaintiff in a defamation action on a
11
matter of public concern). Whether a statement is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory
12
interpretation is a question of law. Gilbert, 147 Cal.App.4th at 33; Smith, 72 Cal.App.4th at 647.
13
As the Supreme Court has explained, “Minor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity so long as the
S C H I L L E R

14
substance, the gist, the sting, of the libelous charge be justified.” Masson v. New Yorker Magazine,
15
Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 517 (1991) (internal quotations omitted). 5 For the same reason, when reporting
16
that Mr. Sanchez disclosed his sister and Bezos’ intimate information and text messages, the news
B O I E S

17
media and their sources had no constitutional obligation to say that this was somehow mitigated by
18
Mr. Sanchez not disclosing nude photos. Paterno v. Superior Court, 163 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1352-
19
53 (2008) (rejecting “defamation by omissions”); accord Reader’s Digest Ass’n v. Superior Court,
20
37 Cal.3d 244, 259 (1984) (a publisher is “not required to provide an objective picture”). If
21
“statements require further explanation, [plaintiff], lawyers, public relations experts, and crisis
22
managers, are free to provide them.” Paterno, 163 Cal.App.4th at 1353.
23
The statements here are not actionable because their defamatory gist is substantially true:
24
Mr. Sanchez did leak his sister and Bezos’ secrets to the Enquirer and he was paid. AMI has
25

26
5
Accord Smith, 72 Cal.App.4th at 646-47 (truth examined by the “substance of the charge,
27 irrespective of slight inaccuracy in the details, so long as the imputation is substantially true so as

28 to justify the ‘gist or sting’ of the remark”) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Gilbert, 147
Cal.App.4th at 28 (finding substantial truth based on the gist of the statement).
-19-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 publicly stated that Michael Sanchez provided all of the material on which the Enquirer relied in

2 its investigation, including text messages and any photos and information about the existence of

3 intimate photos reported in the Enquirer’s coverage. Mr. Sanchez does not even deny leaking

4 details of the couple’s activities and intimate text message. Supra pp. 11-12. Multiple news

5 outlets have also reported that he was the source of both text messages and photos leaked to the

6 Enquirer. Johnson Decl., Exs. 14, 17. The allegedly false statement that Mr. Sanchez also leaked

7 nude photos does not materially add to or differ from the defamatory sting of the truth.

8 (ii) Defendants Lack Fault For Allegedly Saying Mr.

Sanchez Leaked Photos that the Enquirer Acknowledged
9 He Leaked.
L L P

Michael Sanchez must also plead and prove that Defendants acted with the requisite level
10
F L E X N E R

11 of fault in allegedly making the statements. Savage v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 21 Cal.App.4th 434,

12 448 (1993). At a minimum, this means he must show that they were negligent, i.e., that they

13 should have known he did not give nude photos of Bezos to the Enquirer. Id. Mr. Sanchez does
S C H I L L E R

14 not plead a single fact that could support such an allegation. To the contrary, the record provides

15 more than ample basis for Defendants, had they chosen to do so, to have reasonably believed that

16 Mr. Sanchez did leak nude photos. Moreover, given Michael Sanchez’s central role in the public

17 dispute over the Enquirer coverage—and his admissions of involvement in the story—Mr.
B O I E S

18 Sanchez is a limited-purpose public figure. Accordingly, he must prove actual malice by clear and
19 convincing evidence. See Annette F. v. Sharon S., 119 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1162, 1166-67 (2004)
(limited purpose public figure “must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence,”
20

21 striking complaint).
Three elements must be present to demonstrate the plaintiff is a limited purpose public
22

23 figure, each of which is satisfied here. Ampex Corp. v. Cargle, 128 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1577

24 (2005) (citing Copp v. Paxton, 45 Cal.App.4th 829, 845-46 (1996)). First, there must be a public

25 controversy. Id. Courts have stated that a public controversy exists where there is a “topic that

26 concerns a substantial number of people” and is an issue that is “publicly debated.” Grenier v.
27 Taylor, 234 Cal.App.4th 471, 484 (2015) (citing Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal.App.4th at 25).
Second, “the plaintiff must have undertaken some voluntary act through which he or she
28

-20-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 sought to influence resolution of the public issue.” Ampex, 128 Cal.App.4th at 1577. “To satisfy

2 this element, the plaintiff need only attempt to thrust himself or herself into the public eye.”

3 Grenier, 234 Cal.App.4th at 484. Mr. Sanchez attempted, and succeeded, to thrust himself into

4 the public eye by, among other things: (1) helping the Enquirer break the story on Mr. Bezos and

5 his sister (Compl. ¶ 17); (2) leaking other clients’ information to the Enquirer, Johnson Decl., Ex.

6 25; and (3) agreeing to be interviewed by and speaking to press reporters shortly after the Enquirer

7 published its first article, id., Exs. 11, 20, 26, 27, 28. Mr. Sanchez has even said his relationship as

8 a source for the Enquirer spans 20 years. Compl. ¶ 17; De Becker Decl., Ex. 1 at ¶ 14.

9 Third, “the alleged defamation must be germane to the plaintiff’s participation in the
L L P

10 controversy.” Ampex, 128 Cal.App.4th at 1577. The alleged defamation here concerns his role in
F L E X N E R

11 creating the controversy, and then placing himself into a central role in the controversy.

12 As a limited purpose public figure, to prove “actual malice,” id. at 1578, Mr. Sanchez must

13 prove either (i) Defendants subjectively knew the alleged statements were false when they
S C H I L L E R

14 published them or (ii) upon publication, Defendants harbored “serious doubts” that the four

15 alleged Statements were false. E.g., St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 730 (1968). He must

16 meet his burden by “clear and convincing evidence.” Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S.,
B O I E S

17 Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 490 (1984); Reader’s Digest, 37 Cal.3d at 256. Mr. Sanchez cannot possibly

18 prove by clear and convincing evidence that anyone harbored serious doubts that the man who
19 admits he helped the Enquirer break their story—the man who the Enquirer says gave them all of

20 their material—leaked the materials the Enquirer claimed to possess.

21 2. Michael Sanchez’s “Emotional Distress” Claim Also Cannot be Used to

Avoid the Anti-SLAPP Statute and Cannot be Pled or Proved.
22
Michael Sanchez’s inability to demonstrate a likelihood of success on his defamation claim
23
also “spells the demise” of his intentional inflection of emotional distress claim. Gilbert, 147
24
Cal.App.4th at 34. As the Supreme Court ruled in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46
25
(1988), defamation plaintiffs are not permitted to plead alternative theories as a way to avoid the
26
heavier burdens imposed by the First Amendment under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S.
27
254 (1964), nor expand their relief given Sullivan and its progeny. Planned Parenthood Fed’n of
28

-21-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 214 F. Supp. 3d 808, 839-41 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Moreover, as

2 the California Supreme Court has stated, “to allow an independent cause of action for the

3 intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on the same acts which would not support a

4 defamation action, would allow plaintiffs to do indirectly what they could not do

5 directly.” Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc., 42 Cal.3d 234, 245 (1986) (citation and quotation

6 marks omitted); see also Seelig, 97 Cal.App.4th at 812 (granting anti-SLAPP motion on emotional

7 distress claim, which arose from and depended on defamation claim).

8 Furthermore, Michael Sanchez is unable to establish all the elements of his emotional

9 distress claim. Cochran v. Cochran, 65 Cal.App.4th 488, 494 (1998) (setting forth the
L L P

10 elements). Mr. Sanchez merely alleges that Defendants had the intent to “vex” and “annoy” him,
F L E X N E R

11 Compl. ¶ 43, but the tort does not extend to “mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty

12 oppressions, or other trivialities.” Cochran, 65 Cal.App.4th at 496. Mr. Sanchez also does not

13 demonstrate that the conduct was outside the bounds of decency or calculated to cause him
S C H I L L E R

14 emotional harm. Christensen v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 868, 903-04 (1991). It is not even

15 plausible that Defendants would have the intent to harm the brother of Lauren Sanchez, and the

16 Complaint suggests no reason for such intent. See Ampex Corp., 128 Cal.App.4th at 1579
B O I E S

17 (“Where is the basis for inferring personal spite?”). Nor do the reputational harms that Mr.

18 Sanchez claims to have suffered—which, of course, arose directly from his own decision to sell
19 out his sister secretly to the tabloids—meet the “high bar” of showing distress “no reasonable

20 person in civilized society should be expected to endure.” Wong, 189 Cal.App.4th at 1376.

21 IV. CONCLUSION
22 For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant Defendants’ Motion to Strike

23 Michael Sanchez’s Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.

24 DATED: February 3, 2020 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

25
By: /s/ William Isaacson
26
WILLIAM ISAACSON
27 Attorneys for Defendants JEFFREY BEZOS and
GAVIN DE BECKER
28

-22-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Michael Sanchez v. Jeffrey Preston Bezos, et al.
Case No. 20STCV04212
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
5 employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 725 South
Figueroa Street, 31st Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-5524.
6
On February 3, 2020, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANTS JEFFREY BEZOS AND
GAVIN DE BECKER TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CODE
8 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF ARWEN JOHNSON AND GAVIN DE BECKER
9 WITH EXHIBITS on the interested parties in this action as follows:
L L P

10 Enoch H. Liang Attorneys for Plaintiff

F L E X N E R

Caleb H. Liang
11 LTL Attorneys LLP
300 S. Grand Avenue, 14th Floor
12 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 612-8900
13 Fax: (213) 612-3773
Email: enoch.liang@ltlattorneys.com
S C H I L L E R

14 caleb.liang@ltlattorneys.com

15 BY GSO: I enclosed said document(s) in an envelope or package provided by GSO and

addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List. I placed the envelope or
16 package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of GSO
or delivered such document(s) to a courier or driver authorized by GSO to receive documents.
B O I E S

17
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
18 foregoing is true and correct.
19 Executed on February 3, 2020, at Los Angeles, California.
20

21

22

23

24 Adeline Landeros

25

26
27

28

-23-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16
Make a Reservation | Journal Technologies Court Portal Page 1 of 2

Journal Technologies Court Portal

Make a Reservation
MICHAEL SANCHEZ vs JEFFREY PRESTON BEZOS, et al.
Case Number: 20STCV04212     Case Type: Civil Unlimited     Category: Defamation (slander/libel)    
Date Filed: 2020-01-31   Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 58

Reservation
Case Name:
MICHAEL SANCHEZ vs JEFFREY PRESTON Case Number:
BEZOS, et al. 20STCV04212
Type:
Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section Status:
425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) RESERVED
Filing Party: Location:
Jeffrey Preston Bezos, an individual (Defendant) Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 58
Date/Time: Number of Motions:
06/16/2020 8:30 AM 1
Reservation ID: Confirmation Code:
344248376713 CR-WPKY4TGQURPHXKBVO

Fees
Description Fee Qty Amount

First Paper Fees (Unlimited Civil) 435.00 1 435.00

Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) 11.96 1 11.96

TOTAL $446.96

Payment
Amount: Type:
$446.96 AmericanExpress
Account Number: Authorization:
XXXX5009 248743

https://portal-lasc.journaltech.com/public-portal/?q=calendar/reserve 2/3/2020