Added transcript of Aug 22 hearing

JacobAppelbaumLeavesTor.md

@@ -1572,7 +1572,7 @@ They also argue that by "expressing doubt and uncertainty" about the allegations
 
 A second declaration from '[Jane Doe](https://web.archive.org/web/20190806234203/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.31.1.pdf)' was filed, with [redactions](https://web.archive.org/web/20190808113553/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.30.0.pdf) that [both parties had agreed to](https://web.archive.org/web/20190808115825/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.30.5.pdf). On August 6th, [a joint motion](https://web.archive.org/web/20190806234558/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.33.0.pdf) was made to commence with a hearing for the anti-SLAPP motion and the [initial case management conference](https://web.archive.org/web/20190815203957/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.38.0.pdf) on August 22nd, which was [accepted](https://web.archive.org/web/20190814202306/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.35.0.pdf). On August 20th, Todd filed a proposed order for [changing the case name](https://web.archive.org/web/20190821010140/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.41.0.pdf) to "[Peter Todd v. Isis Agora Lovecruft](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14868600/todd-v-lovecruft/)," since Lovecruft had [recently changed their legal name and gender](https://archive.is/3uFWw). Judge Ryu [accepted](https://web.archive.org/web/20190823183655/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.44.0.pdf) the motion the next day, just before [the](https://web.archive.org/web/20190822111944/https:/twitter.com/isislovecruft/status/1164346144941432834?lang=en) [hearing](https://web.archive.org/web/20190823172251/https:/twitter.com/akareilly/status/1164535975109976064?lang=en).
 
-By August 22nd, Lovecruft had raised [more than $60,000](https://web.archive.org/web/20190807211012/https://twitter.com/vaurorapub/status/1159160849681960960?lang=en), of which $35,000 came through [the **GoFundMe** campaign](https://archive.fo/isjJ3). After [the hearing](https://web.archive.org/web/20190824020143/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.46.0.pdf), "the court indicated that it would consider Defendant’s legal challenges... but that their factual challenges would need to be raised in a summary judgment motion after the parties had the opportunity to conduct discovery," based on the precedent of *Planned Parenthood v. Center for Medical Progress*. It was requested that "each side must submit an opening brief" on the merits and standards of the case by September 12th, and submit replies by September 19th.
+By August 22nd, Lovecruft had raised [more than $60,000](https://web.archive.org/web/20190807211012/https://twitter.com/vaurorapub/status/1159160849681960960?lang=en), of which $35,000 came through [the **GoFundMe** campaign](https://archive.fo/isjJ3). After [the hearing](https://web.archive.org/web/20190824020143/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.46.0.pdf), "the court indicated that it would consider Defendant’s legal challenges... but that their factual challenges would need to be raised in a summary judgment motion after the parties had the opportunity to conduct discovery," based on the precedent of *Planned Parenthood v. Center for Medical Progress*. It was requested that "each side must submit an opening brief" on the merits and standards of the case by September 12th, and submit replies by September 19th. A [full transcript](https://web.archive.org/web/20191203154747/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.48.0.pdf) of the hearing was released later.
 
 Both parties submitted their supplemental briefs on the 12th. Todd's [accepted](https://web.archive.org/web/20190912181340/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.49.0.pdf) that he the plaintiff needed to show a "probability of prevailing on the challenged claims," demonstrating "a minimum level of legal sufficiency and triabilty," while arguing that the defendant must show that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact," because "when an anti-SLAPP motion challenges the factual sufficiency of a claim, 'then the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standard will apply.'" Lovecruft [argued](https://web.archive.org/web/20190913083155/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.50.0.pdf) that, while the court should apply California’s two-prong burden-shifting approach, they should "not require defendant to establish the first prong of California’s anti-SLAPP framework" as long as they found "no genuine dispute" on material facts. According to [an excerpt of the transcript](https://web.archive.org/web/20190913083113/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.50.2.pdf) produced for the August 22nd hearing, submitted by [Rosenfeld](https://web.archive.org/web/20190913083240/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.50.1.pdf), both sides still agreed that the court should treat this anti-SLAPP motion as a motion for [summary judgment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56). They disagreed on whether the burdens for the [plaintiff](https://web.archive.org/web/20190920125704/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.51.0.pdf) or [defendant](https://web.archive.org/web/20190920125726/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.52.0.pdf) were equivalent in an anti-SLAPP motion versus summary judgement.