Court quashes evidence in my defense, rules in Blue Shield's favor

  The  suppressed evidence  includes my description to the judge of my internal whistleblowing.

The suppressed evidence includes my description to the judge of my internal whistleblowing.

A little over a year ago, Blue Shield sued me, alleging I had disclosed confidential information and demanding a court-imposed gag order. In response, I filed a motion to dismiss the suit under California’s anti-SLAPP law, which is intended to make it easier to strike down lawsuits that target free speech activities and don’t have clear merit. Over the last year, we've battled in court over that motion.

The judge has now issued her ruling. She denied my motion, green-lighting the lawsuit. But most troubling was what preceded the decision.

Blue Shield’s lawyers got the judge to disregard, without looking at it, evidence I had presented in my defense. Incredibly, the judge took on simple faith Blue Shield’s claims that the evidence consisted of the company's own attorney-client privileged information, and therefore, should not be seen by either her or the public. The material she sealed, however, plainly shows that Blue Shield's claims are false.

I’m quite sure that giving Blue Shield liberty to blind the court to evidence supporting my defense is not what “justice is blind” is supposed to mean, so I’m appealing. And I’m confidant that the California Court of Appeals won’t affirm an interpretation of the law that would give corporations a virtually free hand to suppress evidence from whistleblowers that they don't want a court or the public to see.

October 6, 2017 Update: My appeal brief was filed today.

June 25, 2018 Update: The California Attorney General, representing the state insurance department, weighed in on my side with an amicus brief.

RELATED POSTS