Bikkina v. Mahadevan
15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11, 193 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499, 241 Cal.App.4th 70 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To invoke California's anti-SLAPP statute, a defendant's challenged statements must arise from protected activity concerning a public issue or an issue of public interest, which requires the statements themselves to contribute to the public debate, not merely relate to a broad topic of public concern.
Facts:
- In 2007, Prem Bikkina entered a Ph.D. program at the University of Tulsa, with Jagan Mahadevan serving as his dissertation advisor and supervisor from 2007 to 2010.
- In March 2011, Bikkina published a scientific paper (Paper 1) on carbon sequestration that Mahadevan believed contained inaccuracies, leading to a dispute.
- In 2011, Bikkina published a second scientific article (Paper 2) in a professional journal, and Mahadevan claimed he was a co-author.
- In March 2012, Mahadevan filed a formal complaint against Bikkina under the University’s ethical conduct policy, alleging Bikkina had falsified data in Paper 2 and plagiarized Mahadevan’s work.
- In April 2013, Mahadevan filed another complaint with the University's vice provost for research, stating that Bikkina had engaged in plagiarism and falsified data in his dissertation.
- In May 2013, the University's senior vice provost concluded that Mahadevan had violated the University’s harassment policies through bad faith efforts to interfere with Bikkina’s research and reputation, finding no misconduct by Bikkina.
- In June 2013, after Bikkina completed his Ph.D. and began working at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Mahadevan contacted one of Bikkina’s superiors to claim Bikkina had falsified data in Papers 1 and 2.
- On August 30, 2013, Mahadevan made a presentation at LBNL where he told Bikkina’s colleagues that Bikkina had published a paper using false data and also contacted LBNL’s research and institutional integrity officer with similar claims.
Procedural Posture:
- In March 2014, Prem Bikkina filed a complaint for damages against Jagan Mahadevan in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging four causes of action: (1) libel per se, (2) negligence, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (4) slander per se.
- Jagan Mahadevan filed a special motion to strike Bikkina’s complaint pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16).
- The trial court (Alameda County Superior Court) denied Mahadevan's anti-SLAPP motion, finding that his statements did not arise from protected activity.
- Jagan Mahadevan (defendant and appellant) appealed the denial of his special motion to strike to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four; Prem Bikkina is the plaintiff and respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's private campaign to discredit a former student and colleague, involving specific accusations of falsified data and plagiarism in scientific papers, constitute protected activity under California's anti-SLAPP statute, even if the research topic (carbon sequestration) is broadly related to a matter of public interest like climate change?
Opinions:
Majority - Ruvolo, P.J.
No, the defendant's private campaign to discredit the plaintiff with specific accusations of falsified data and plagiarism did not constitute protected activity under California's anti-SLAPP statute. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Mahadevan's anti-SLAPP motion, finding that his statements did not arise from protected activity under either subdivision (e)(3) or (e)(4) of section 425.16. First, the statements were not made in a place open to the public or a public forum as required by subdivision (e)(3). Mahadevan's communications to University faculty and LBNL scientists, including a lecture to a small group of LBNL employees, did not permit open debate and were not reported in media or posted on public websites, distinguishing them from cases like Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula or Summit Bank v. Rogers. Second, the statements did not concern an issue of public interest under subdivision (e)(4). The court rejected Mahadevan's argument that his criticism of Bikkina's research on carbon sequestration was a matter of public interest because it related to climate change. Citing Weinberg v. Feisel and Rivero v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the court clarified that a matter of public interest must be of concern to a substantial number of people, not just a small, specific audience. Mahadevan's specific complaints about contaminated samples and plagiarism were a "private campaign to discredit another scientist," not a contribution to a public debate on broader issues. The court distinguished this case from Taus v. Loftus, where articles raising doubts about a prominent scholarly article on repressed memory were deemed part of an academic debate on a topic of substantial controversy. Bikkina's papers were not prominent, nor was the dispute a widespread controversy. The court emphasized that the "specific nature of the speech," not general abstractions, determines public interest, and that public funding of LBNL research does not automatically make every related issue one of public interest. Even if the activity were protected, the court found Bikkina demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his claims. Bikkina presented prima facie evidence of defamation (libel and slander per se) through declarations and University findings that Mahadevan's accusations were "knowingly and in bad faith" false. Bikkina also made a sufficient showing for intentional infliction of emotional distress, detailing severe physical and psychological symptoms, and for negligence. Furthermore, while Mahadevan claimed his statements were privileged under Civil Code section 47(b) (litigation privilege) or 47(c) (common interest privilege), the court noted section 47(b) likely didn't apply to internal University proceedings and certainly not to statements made to LBNL. Regarding section 47(c), Bikkina presented ample prima facie evidence of "actual malice" (hatred, ill will, or reckless disregard for Bikkina's rights) to defeat the privilege, citing Mahadevan's persistent, repeatedly disproven allegations, and threats.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'public interest' element of California's anti-SLAPP statute, emphasizing that a mere tangential connection to a broadly important public issue is insufficient for protection. It establishes that specific, targeted accusations against an individual, even within academic or scientific contexts, must themselves contribute to a public debate to qualify as protected speech, making it more challenging to shield personal attacks under the anti-SLAPP framework. The decision also provides a strong example of what constitutes sufficient evidence of 'actual malice' to defeat the common interest privilege in professional disputes, particularly when allegations are repeatedly found to be baseless. This ruling serves to prevent the anti-SLAPP statute from being misused to silence legitimate claims of professional defamation and harassment.
