Monday, November 4

A Dollar Spent Is a Dollar Claimed 
 
The grand claims of millions of dollars in compensation and punishment with which Planned Parenthood opened its lawsuit have been reduced by the judge's order. Plaintiffs spent the day itemizing every dollar of their remaining claims.

+ + + + + +
 
In opening today’s session, Judge William Orrick informed the jury that he was confident that evidence and argument in this trial would be wrapped up in the present week. “We are not there yet,” he told the jurors, “But we are getting there.”

Today it was all about the dollars.  Or rather, about dollars and blame.  The theme, again, was that Planned Parenthood (PPFA) had had to spend dollars, and that the defendants (CMP) are to blame.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys called two friendly witnesses – one an employee, the other a paid expert – and guided them through testimony intended to justify the “compensatory damages” that Planned Parenthood is seeking, and to support the claim that the defendants are responsible for these expenditures and should make Planned Parenthood whole.

It was five hours of evidence and argument, in which the plaintiffs’ attorneys brought forth what sounded to this lay observer like the same old evidence; and defendants’ attorneys in sharp bursts of cross-examination raised doubts about the tendentious testimony, much of which echoed what we have heard before. Even a very patient listener might have found himself wondering, “How many floor plans of hotels are they going to show us? And why?”

A hired Forensic Accountant came first, and with charts and graphs showed the costs that Planned Parenthood hurriedly incurred for the services of security consultants and security providers subsequent to the release of Center for Medical Progress videotapes in July 2015.  He was followed by a Director of Events for PPFA, who recounted in minute detail the arrangements for security that PPFA used to make for its conferences pre-CMP,  and described the different security arrangements and procedures now standard for PPFA in the wake of the CMP undercover investigation.

Did the jury find it, as I did, repetitive and tedious? Whatever the value and effect of the plaintiffs’ presentations today may ultimately prove to be, there was a sad quality about it of nickel-and-diming. Planned Parenthood announced its lawsuit in grand style in January 2016. Here is the Fact Sheet posted by Planned Parenthood  at the time. The monetary awards sought by PPFA at that time are listed in it under Remedies Sought:

Remedies sought
● Restitution of monies expended by Planned Parenthood as a result of Defendants’ unlawful,  unfair, and fraudulent business practices
● Compensatory damages
● Statutory damages and penalties
● Three times the damages Planned Parenthood has suffered as a result of the RICO violations
● Punitive damages
● Attorneys’ fees

Estimates of the potential liability of the defendants ranged from $14 million to $20 million. And PPFA succeeded in getting their suit into the court of a man who has been called by pro-lifers “Planned Parenthood’s favorite judge.”

Judge Orrick, however, ruled that the greater part of these claims would not be allowed in his court. See this article explaining Judge Orrick’s ruling of July 18, 2019. A projected liability of many millions shrank to a possible liability of several hundred thousand.

Today’s testimony itemized PPFA’s comparatively paltry claims, adding up line items as small as a few hundred dollars, and asserting that the defendants are responsible for every penny. The total was just over $630,000, with $489,000 of it categorized as “damages from infiltration” and $141,000 as “damages for security for personnel.” (To you and me and the defendants, that’s still a lot of money. For Planned Parenthood, it’s quite a comedown from their grandiose ambitions for this lawsuit.)

There seems to be a logic puzzle in these claims. The plaintiffs insist that their security procedures were good and thorough prior to the CMP “infiltration.” But it is clear that these procedures were lax and ineffective, as evidenced by the fact that the CMP infiltration was so easy, as well as by admissions secured from PPFA witnesses on cross-examination. PPFA may have spent a good deal of money to improve its security. But how then does CMP owe the costs of improvements that in hindsight were obviously needed even if there had been no CMP “infiltration”?

Court is in session again on Tuesday, November 5. 

For those interested in detail, here is the transcript of proceedings of Friday, November 1
 
                               -- by J. A. Gray, correspondent