. . . signed nondisclosure agreements barring them from making recordings at the conferences and from disclosing information obtained there. Connections made at the 2014 conference led to meetings that were secretly recorded, then publicized . . .
Exposing crimes is not even relevant. The videos were not made at the conference and thus did not violate the agreement. This is a purely frivolous lawsuit, where the baby killers are counting on their corrupt connections in our White House, in our Justice Department, and in our courts to protect their Planned Parenthood money machine.
From response, linked above:
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a breach of the NDA.
Without referring to any specific allegations in the Complaint, and through broad generalizations and even mischaracterizations of its own allegations, NAF argues that Defendants entered into two contracts with NAF—an Exhibitor Agreement and a non-disclosure agreement (hereinafter “NDA”) signed by several of the Defendants on or around April 5, 2014, and only one Defendant in April 2015—all of which, NAF contends, were breached by Defendants. The applicable NDA provisions allegedly breached by Defendants include:
1. “Attendees are prohibited from making video, audio, photographic, or other recordings of the meetings or discussions at this conference”;
2. “NAF Conference Information includes all information distributed or otherwise made available at this conference by NAF or any conference participants through all written materials, discussions, workshops, or other means. . . . Attendees may not use NAF Conference Information in any manner inconsistent with these purposes”; and
3. “Attendees may not disclose any NAF Conference Information to third parties without first obtaining NAF’s express written consent. . . .”
See Cmplt., at ¶¶ 52, 54, and 136; Exhibits A-D, F.
Based upon these provisions of the NDA, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Daleiden breached the contract when he (1) referenced in a video a discussion he had with Dr. Reeves at an NAF meeting, see Cmplt., ¶ 71, and (2) mentioned in a video the names of several abortion providers which NAF contends were obtained “upon information and belief” by Daleiden during his attendance at an NAF conference 10 months prior, see id. at ¶¶ 72-73. To be clear, Plaintiff does not argue that the videos themselves contain video footage of NAF annual meetings of conference in breach of any contract – only that information obtained from the NAF conference is discussed on these videos. NAF also alleges, but offers no proof to support, that Defendants may have taken videos at the NAF meeting in violation of paragraph 1 of the NDA. See id. at ¶ 69 (alleging only that NAF believes Defendant may have taken videos of the NAF annual meeting). Notably, the NDA agreement does not, as Plaintiffs assert in paragraph 136 of the Complaint, broadly prohibit individuals from making a recording at NAF annual meetings; it only applies to videos or other recordings of conference “meetings” and conference “discussions.” Random conversations between conference attendees in a hallway or restaurant, which are the kind of conversations NAF speculates may have been recorded, are certainly not conference meetings or conference discussions under the NDA.