Tendler v. Does [1]

Rabbi Mordechai Tendler requested subpoenas in Ohio state court to force Google to uncover the identities of the writers of four blogs -  Jewish Whistleblower [2], Jewish Survivors of Sexual Violence Speak Out [3], New Hempstead News [4], and The Committee for Rabbinic Integrity [5].  According to court documents, these blogs wrote about Tendler's defrocking due to allegations of sexual abuse. The Ohio court granted Tendler's request, but Google ignored the subpoenas.

Tendler filed his subpoena request again, this time in California state court.  Upon receipt of the California subpoenas, Google notified the four bloggers.  The writers of Jewish Whistleblower [2], Jewish Survivors of Sexual Violence Speak Out [3], and New Hempstead News [4] moved to quash [6] the subpoena and to strike [7] under California's anti-SLAPP law, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 [8]. Tendler voluntarily withdrew his subpoena request in response.

The bloggers proceeded on their motion to strike under section 425.16, which the Santa Clara Superior Court granted [9].  The court also awarded the bloggers $20,330 in attorney's fees under section 425.16 (c).  Tendler appealed the court's granting of the motion to strike.

The California Court of Appeals reversed [10] the lower court's ruling.  The court ruled that, on a plain reading of section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP motion could only be used to strike a complaint, cross-complaint, petition, or other similar pleading.  A subpoena, the court said, does not fall into this category, and therefore the anti-SLAPP motion is unavailable to strike a subpoena. As a result, the court concluded that the lower court should have denied the bloggers' motion to strike and should not have awarded them attorney's fees.