ST A TE OF MfNNESOT A

COUNTY OF DAKOTA
New School Corporations, Inc. a
Minnesota Corporation,
Blois Olson,
J DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Case Type: Other Civil
Court File No. 19-CX-06-6432
Plaintifs,
V.
DEFENDANTS' M.EMORANDUM OF LA \V
I SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. CHAPTER 554
Michael B. Brodkorb and
w.minnesotademocratsexposed.com,
Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants submit th. is Memorandum of Law in support of their motion to djsmiss
pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chapter 554. Defendants' conduct which is the subject of and basis for
Plaintifs' Complaint resulted from an exercise of Defendants' rights of fee speech and
participation in local goverent. Plaintiffs' suit is intended to stife or inhibit the exercise of
such rigt and, accordjngly, is prohibited by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 554 (1994).
11. DOCUMENTS COMlRISL'G THE RECORD
I. Summons and Complaint with Exhibits
2. Defendants Joint Answer
3. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss
4. Afdavit of Michael B. Brodkorb with Exibits
Ill. UNDISPUTED FACTS
A. Bckgrund of ww.mlnnesotaderocratesexposed.com
In June of 2004, Michael B. Brodkorb (hereinafer referred to a "Brodkorb") began
www.minnesotademocratesexposed.com (hereinafer referre to as "MDE") a an interet web log
a/a "blog." See Afdavit of Michael B. Brodkorb, 2. Since its inception MDE has maintained
a inteet based fr dedicted to fee speech and open discussion about local, state and national
politics, current issues and events, and promoting conserative ideologies. Additionally, MDE is
dedicated to a truthful discussion on the activities, statements, and tactics of Minnesota Democrats
s as to allow the eletorate a full, fair and unbiased evaluaton of Democratic candidates fr
political ofce. Id., 3.
From it inception until shorly afer this lawsuit was sere upon me
\'WW.minneotademocratesexpsed.com was authored anonymously so the content placed into
circulation was not overshadowed with preconceived opinions based upon the background,
employment histor and reputation of its author. Id. 5. ww .minnesotademocratesexposed.com
has been quoted and cited on multiple occasions as a credible source of inforation by the
following news organizations:
Id., i 4.
a. St. Paul Pioneer Press;
b. Minneapolis SLar Tribune;
c. National Joural; and
d. Associated Press.
As a result of Plaintifs' lawsuit against Defendants, www.minnesotademocrateexposed.com was
forced to discontinue reporting on the Humphrey/owley story. Id., i 6.
2
B. Humphrey Seeks Consulting Contract with Rowley Campaig
On December 28, 2005, w.minesotademocratesexposecl.com reported that Hubert H.
"Duck" Humphrey, III (ereinafer referred to as "Buck Hwnplu-ey'') approached Colleen Rowley's
campaig for United States Congres (hereinafer referred to as ''the Rowley Campaign") wit a
proposal to do consulting work. It was frther reported tat Buck Humphrey's proposal was
rejected by the Rowley Campaign. See Afdavit of Michael B. Brodkorb, 7. At the time of the
submission of the proposal to the Rowley Campaig Buck Humphrey was employed as a "Senior
Counselor'' with New School Communications, Inc. and had been since March 2005. Id., 8.
New School Communicatons, Inc. is owne by Blois Olson {hereinafer referre to a "Olson"), a
Democratic strategist, pliticl cmmentator and Cauthor of te political news magazine Politics
in Minnesota. J
d
.
,
ii 9.
in response to the Rowley stor Olson cntacted www.minnesotademocratesexposed.com
via email claiming the rer was "ASOLUTELY FALSE" ad that Buck Hwnphrey may have
pursued work with the Rowley Campaig pror to his employent at New School. Olson ten
demanded a retraction or face legal action. Td., 10.
C. Commencement of Litigation
On December 29, 2005, Olson's attorey, Steven H. Silton commenced the current lawsuit
against Defendants. Immeiately upon service of the lawsuit upon your afant Olson released a
copy of the Summons and Complaint to the Assciate Press. Id., 13. Olson then used his status
as a radio and television celebrity to gain an appearance on two radio talk show programs to discuss
the lawsuit. Id., 14.
3
IV. ISSUE
A. Whether Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Michael B. Brodkorb nod
www.minnesotadcmocratsexposed.com must be dismissed because the conduct
which is the subject of the claims constitutes lawful conduct of free speech as
protected by the Brst Amendment intended to procure a favorable goverment
action through public participation.
V. DISCUSSION
A. Basis for motion to dismiss and burdens of proof, of going forward with evidence,
and persuasion.
Defendants maintain that Plaintifs' action is a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation) aimed at interfering with Defendants' legitimate exercise of their First Amendment
rights to both fee speech and procure favorable goverent action through public participation.
Such lawsuits nre specifcally prohibited in Minnesota ad are subject to immediate dismissal by
district cours.
Minn. Stat. 554.03 (Immunity) provides that:
Lawful conduct or speech that is genuinely aimed in whole or in
part at procuring favorable goverent action is immune fom
liability, unless the conduct or speech constitutes a tort or a
violation of a person's constitutional rights.
The curent motion to dismiss is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. 554.02, subd. 1, because
Plaintiffs' claims relate materially to acts of Defendants which were taken during Defendants'
involvement in public paricipation. Minn. Stat. 554.01, subd. 6, defnes Public Participations
as:
"Public paricipation" means speech or lawful cnduct that is genuinely aimed in
whole or in part at procuring favorable goverment action.
4
It is sign.fcant to note that in opposing Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to
Chapter 554, Plaintifs have the "burden of proof, of going forward with the evidence, and of
persuasion on the motion." Minn. Stat. 554.02, subd. 2 (2). Furher, the statute mandates that
this Court "shall grant the motion and dismiss the judicial claim unless the court finds that the
responding pary has produced clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the moving party
are not imunized fom liability under section 554.03." "ld. at subd. 2 (3).
B. Background information regarding SLAPP.
SLAPP is an acronym for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Paiticipation.'' SLAPPs are
lawsuits aimed at silencing a plaintifs opponents. The purpose of the SLAPP is not to win, but
to intimidate the SLAPP defndant and to chll petiti on andor fee speech rights. One court has
explained the characteristics of SLAPP suits as follows: SLAPP suits are brought to obtain an
economic advantage over the defndant, not to vindicate a legally cogizable right of te
plaintif. Indeed, one of the common characteristics of a SLAPP suit is its lack of merit. But lack
of merit is not of concer to the plaintiff because the plaintif does not expect to succeed in the
lawsuit; only to tie up the defndants' resources for a sufcient leng of 6me to accomplish
plaintif's underlying objective.
VI. CONCLUSION
The Defendants ability and desire to participate in public debate should not be
vompromised or stifled by the possibility of meritless and unsubstantated litigation. That is
precisely what will occur if the curent matter is allowed to proceed. Accordingly, fr the
foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this Court gant its motion to dismiss
pursuant to Chapter 554 and dismiss Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety with prejt1di ce.
5
Defendants further request that ts Court award Defendant attoreys fees incue and damages
suffered in this matter pursuant to Minn. Stat. 554.04, subds. 1 & 2.
Dated: -, 7 , 2006.
WALSH & GAERTNER, P.A.
Gregory J. Walsh, #291705
Attoreys fr Defndant
525 Park Street, Suite 230
St. Paul, M 55103
6