Democracy Partners, LLC v. Project Veritas Action Fund ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEMOCRACY PARTNERS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Civil Action No. 17-1047 (ESH)
PROJECT VERITAS ACTION FUND, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the Order granting in part
and denying in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (See Defs.’ Mot. for
Reconsideration, ECF No. 87 (“Mot.”).) Plaintiffs have filed an opposition (see Pls.’ Opp’n,
ECF No. 92 (“Opp.”)), and defendants have filed a reply (see Defs.’ Reply, ECF No. 93). For
the reasons stated herein, the motion is denied.
Defendants move for reconsideration to address what they describe as “two discrete and
clear factual errors regarding the deposition testimony of AFSCME Rule 30(b)(6) witness Scott
Frey.” (Mot. at 1.) According to defendants, the Court “incorrectly interpreted quotations from
Frey’s testimony.” (Id.) Defendants argue that these alleged errors matter because “the Court
relied on this misapprehension in denying summary judgment on First Amendment/causation
grounds as to alleged AFSCME damages and also AUFC damages.” (Id. at 2.)
At issue are the two quotations in the “see also” clause in the following paragraph
(highlighted in bold):
AFSCME's cancellation of its contract with Strategic Consulting: Defendants
argue that the evidence shows that either plaintiffs' conduct (as displayed on the
videos) or considerations unrelated to Project Veritas, such as a lack of resources,
were the only reasons behind AFSCME's decision to cancel its contract with
Strategic Consulting. But while the evidence shows that these considerations
played a part in AFSCME's decision, there is sufficient evidence to support
plaintiffs' view that AFSCME was also concerned about the infiltration itself and
the fact that Creamer and Strategic Consulting had allowed it to occur. Most
notably, Scott Frey, AFSCME's director of government affairs, testified that,
among AFSCME's other concerns, “part of [his] concern [was] that [plaintiffs]
had allowed their offices to be infiltrated by a Project Veritas operative.” (Frey
Dep. at 102:16-19 (Sandler Decl. Ex. 12); see also Frey Dep. at 77:8-11 (“[I]t
was the view at the time that [plaintiffs] had created the opportunity for this
operation to occur, and it had become a major distraction to, and an
unnecessary one at a critical moment in time.”); Frey Dep. at 78:20-22 (“I
think it was the overall sense that they had allowed this to occur, they invited
this opportunity into their midst. . . .”).)
Democracy Partners v. Project Veritas Action Fund, No. 17-cv-1047, 2020 WL 1536217, at *8
(D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2020) (emphasis added).
Defendants argue that the Court’s citation of this testimony was clear error because (1)
viewed in context, neither supports the main point (that “part of [his] concern [was] that
[plaintiffs] had allowed their offices to be infiltrated by a Project Veritas operative”); and (2)
without this evidence, there is not “sufficient evidence” that plaintiffs’ damages were caused by
defendants’ non-First Amendment activity. The Court disagrees.
With respect to the first parenthetical, the excerpted text was part of the following
question and answer (excerpted part in bold):
Q. Okay. Okay. Why did [the AFSCME Chief of Staff Bill Lurye] make that
recommendation [to terminate the relationship]?
A. Again, we felt there was – understanding what we knew about this
organization, Project Veritas, and their representation, their reputation for
misrepresenting the facts1 and doing these types of videos, we did feel that there
was an element of indiscretion that they’d allowed Mr. Foval into their midst
without serious vetting, that they created a, it was the view at the time that they
had created the opportunity for this, for this operation to occur, and it had
become a major distraction to, and an unnecessary one at a critical moment
in time.
2
We did not want, we did not, we did not want to, we did not welcome the
distraction it created.
Defendants contend that the Court misinterpreted Frey’s testimony because “it is clear from the
prior half of the sentence from which the erroneous partial quote was extracted that the subject
was plaintiffs’ “allow[ing] Mr. Foval into their midst without serious vetting” which “had
created the opportunity for this, for this operation to occur[.]” (Mot. at 5.) But the Court does
not agree that defendants’ view is the only plausible interpretation of Frey’s testimony. Another
plausible interpretation, as plaintiffs point out, is that Frey was
saying three distinct things: (1) AFSCME was not concerned with the content of
the videos—the “expressive content”—given Project Veritas’ well-deserved
“reputation for misrepresenting the facts;” (2) AFSCME was concerned that
Democracy Partners, Strategic Consulting and Mr. Creamer had allowed Mr.
Foval “into their midst;” and (3) AFSCME was also concerned that the Plaintiffs
had “created the opportunity for this, for this operation to occur.”
(Opp. at 4.) In particular, the general reference to “this operation” could be referring to the entire
Project Veritas project, including the infiltration of Democracy Partners’ offices, not just the role
Scott Foval may have played in that operation. That view is supported by Frey’s later testimony
when he unequivocally stated that “part of [his] concern [was] that [plaintiffs] had allowed their
offices to be infiltrated by a Project Veritas operative.” (Frey Dep. at 102.) On summary
judgment, the evidence, and any inferences draw therefrom, must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiffs. Through that lens, it is not “clear” that Frey’s testimony was only
about Foval. Moreover, plaintiffs’ alternative and plausible interpretation must be what the
Court takes as fact for purposes of summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court does not agree
that its citation to the first excerpt of Frey’s testimony was a clear error of “fact.”
With respect to the second parenthetical, the excerpted text was part of the following
question and answer (excerpted part in bold):
3
Q. Prior to the letter – let me back up. Did AFSCME have concerns about
anything Mr. Creamer said on the video that was released?
A. I am trying to remember what he said in the video. My recollection is that we
did. We did have concerns with that he said. What specifically those were without
reviewing the video again I wouldn’t, wouldn’t recall specifically what those
concerns were, but that he was speaking ad hoc about his strong ties to the Clinton
campaign, and it seemed a bit inappropriate, but then, again, we also were aware
that, of the view that the video had been highly selectively edited, and, likely,
those words were taken out of context.
I think it was the overall sense that they allowed this to occur, they invited
this opportunity into their midst, but I think the broader concern was just
clearly, regardless of the circumstances that led to the video, the video in itself
and the way it was released and the timing was a very unfortunate distraction, and
we didn’t want to be a party to it.
(Frey Dep. at 78-79.) Defendants argue that if Frey’s testimony had been quoted in its entirety it
would be clear that Frey “conclusively rejects [p]laintiffs’ theory of damages.” (Mot. at 7.)
But the Court does not agree that Frey’s statement that the “broader concern” was the video itself
is a “conclusive reject[ion]” of plaintiffs’ theory of damages, especially given Frey’s later
testimony that “part of [his] concern [was] that [plaintiffs] had allowed their offices to be
infiltrated by a Project Veritas operative.” (Frey Dep. at 102.) Again, the evidence must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and in that light there is a material factual
dispute as to whether defendants’ non-First Amendment activity was a substantial factor in
causing plaintiffs’ damages.
Finally, even if the Court agreed with defendants’ view of the excerpted testimony in the
two parentheticals, it would not, contrary to defendants’ assumption, reach a different
conclusion. (See Mot. at 8 (“Had the Court also believed the single affirmative answer was
sufficient evidence of a substantial factor, it is safe to assume that the Court would not have also
cited the erroneous partial quotes.”).) Even without the testimony cited in the parentheticals, the
fact that Frey testified that AFSCME was “concern[ed] that [plaintiffs] had allowed their offices
4
to be infiltrated by a Project Veritas operative” (Frey Dep. at 102) would be sufficient evidence –
when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs – to defeat defendants’ motion for summary
judgment on the issue of whether defendants’ non-First Amendment activity was a substantial
factor in bringing about the damages attributable to AFSCME’s cancellation of their contract.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
.
_______________________
ELLEN S. HUVELLE
United States District Judge
Date: August 27, 2020
5