SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE

Central Justice Center

700 W. Civic Center Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92702
SHORT TITLE: Harkins vs. Major League Baseball

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/ELECTRONIC CASE NUMBER:

SERVICE 30-2020-01157569-CU-DF-CJC

I certify that I am not a party to this cause. I certify that the following document(s), Minute Order dated 01/25/21, have
been transmitted electronically by Orange County Superior Court at Santa Ana, CA. The transmission originated from
Orange County Superior Court email address on January 25, 2021, at 2:42:52 PM PST. The electronically transmitted
document(s) is in accordance with rule 2.251 of the California Rules of Court, addressed as shown above. The list of
electronically served recipients are listed below:

DANIEL L RASMUSSEN KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

DANLRAS@MAC.COM ALAURIDSEN@KEKER.COM

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
ANIEHAUS@KEKER.COM NMARAIS@KEKER.COM

MATTHEW K BROWN
MKBROWN34@GMAIL.COM

Clerk of the Court, by:

, Deputy

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/ELECTRONIC SERVICE

V3 1013a (June 2004) Code of Civ. Procedure , § CCP1013(a)

 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 01/25/2021 TIME: 02:36:00 PM DEPT: C13
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Geoffrey T. Glass
CLERK: Joanne M Schwartz
REPORTER/ERM: None
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: None

CASE NO: 30-2020-01157569-CU-DF-CJC CASE INIT.DATE: 08/28/2020

CASE TITLE: Harkins vs. Major League Baseball
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Defamation

EVENT ID/DOCUMENT ID: 73457044

EVENT TYPE: Under Submission Ruling

APPEARANCES

There are no appearances by any party.

The Court, having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on 01/21/2021 and having fully
considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, now
rules as follows:

The court grants the Special Motion to Strike.

The analysis of this motion has two prongs. First, does the challenged activity arise from a protected
activity. In that regard, Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 (e) protects any written or oral statement or writing
made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest. Neither
side contests that the challenged statements were made in connection with an issue of public interest.

The critical questions are whether the statements were made by the defendants in this case and, if so,
were they made in a public forum, and, if so, were they truthful? This is the second prong. Plaintiff
Harkins must show facts that would sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff
were credited.

There is no controversy that Harkins was fired from his job by Angels Baseball because of (1) his
concoction of rosin and pine tar, (2) which he provided to home and visiting pitchers and (3) was illegal
under the rules of major league baseball. As to the truth of those reasons, Harkins agrees to the first two,
but disputes the third. According to the evidence presented by Harkins, MLB had, several days before
Haskins was fired, issued an interpretation of Rule 6.02(c) (disallowing use of foreign substances on the
ball) making it applicable to staff and players, but he had no knowledge of the new interpretation. MLB
informed Angels Baseball that Harkins was violating this rule. Angels informed Harkins of this
transgression when terminating his employment and added that another reason Harkins was terminated
was for providing the substance to opposing pitchers.

At this point, the court must consider two things: Were the statements about the concoction being illegal

DATE: 01/25/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 1

DEPT: C13 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Harkins vs. Major League Baseball CASE NO: 30-2020-01157569-CU-DF-CJC

made by MLB to Angels and by Angels to Harkins true, and were the statements public? Since the MLB
in fact made possession or distribution of these types of substances by staff a violation of the rules, the
answer to the former question is clear: The challenged statements made by MLB to Angels and by the
Angels to Harkins were true. This is not to say that the termination was justified under the circumstances,
only that the plaintiff cannot show that these statements were false and defamatory.

Further, any attack on the propriety of the change to MLB’s rules, including Rule 6.02, must be put in
context. These rules are not statutes automatically enforceable by courts. The MLB commissioner is
charged with the task of promoting the “best interests” of baseball. That power combined with historically
substantial judicial deference to the commissioner's discretion and judgment and actions taken under his
authority have enabled MLB commissioners to advance baseball's role as a social institution, to ensure
compliance with MLB rules and fair play, and to promote competitive balance among MLB clubs, as well
as to maintain the integrity of the game. Judicial intervention is appropriate if the commissioner's rules,
regulations, or judgments are in contravention to the laws of the land or in disregard of the charter or
bylaws of the association where he has failed to follow the basic rudiments of due process of law. Allan
H. ("Bud") Selig & Matthew J. Mitten, Baseball Jurisprudence: Its Effects on America's Pastime and Other
Professional Sports Leagues (2018) 50 Ariz. St. L.J. 1171, 1176. Harkins has not shown that the rule he
allegedly violated should be invalidated, nor has he shown the conclusion of MLB that he violated the
rule, even if invalidated, could be the basis for a defamation action.

Even if one assumes that the statements were defamatory, were they made in public?

First, consider the statements made by MLB to Angels. Under Civil Code Section 47(c), MLB and the
Angels have a privilege to communicate about employees based upon a common interest, provided it is
without malice. Harkins argues that malice may be implied by the lack of other discipline and the opinion
of others that he was made a scapegoat. Neither of those facts were shown with requisite specificity.
Even if they had been, these facts would be insufficient to sustain a favorable judgment on the issue of
malice. Consequently, the court finds that the statements by MLB to the Angels were privileged and
cannot form the basis for a claim of defamation.

Second, consider the statements made by the Angels to Harkins upon his termination. There can be no
defamation action for statements made only to the defamed person, with one exception. As Harkins
argues, Angels can be liable for defamation if the circumstances would make it foreseeable that Harkins
would have to disclose those communications to third parties. Harkins asserts that he was coerced into
disclosing the (allegedly) false statements to potential employees. His proof is a letter to another baseball
club seeking employment. Without any context, the letter, dated less than three weeks ago, addresses
the reasons given for his firing and the press statements about his firing. There is nothing to indicate that
Harkins was asked to explain his termination or that he needed to divulge statements made to him by the
Angels, especially because of the extensive press on the issue. Clearly he would have to address the
published reports of his firing to potential employers, if they asked about them, but the evidence does not
show that it was foreseeable that he would have to disclose the substance of the statements made upon
his termination. The evidence in this regard is only speculative.

This brings us to the most hurtful of all the statements alleged: the press reports. Mr. Harkins has
catalogued many published reports about his firing and the epithets of “cheater” and “fraud” and worse.
As bad as those reports and their effects are, three things must be noted:

First, those published stories are not admissible to prove that the reported statements were made. News
articles are generally not admissible for the truth of the facts asserted. That is, without more, an article
which said “X made the following defamatory statement” would not be admissible to show that X made
the statement. Harkins’ claim that he was defamed in the media by MLB and Angels cannot be proven by
the articles themselves. (Not to put too fine a point on this, but of course articles can be admitted and
used to show damages and how widespread the defamation was, but that use is based upon the repeat

DATE: 01/25/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 2

DEPT: C13 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Harkins vs. Major League Baseball CASE NO: 30-2020-01157569-CU-DF-CJC

of the defamatory statements, which by definition are not being admitted for the truth of the matter.)

Second, the published statements do not support the allegation that MLB or Angels authorized those
statements. The published reports, if they report a source, reference “anonymous” sources or sources
“unauthorized to speak publicly” on the matter. In order to hold an organization liable for defamation, the
person saying the defamatory things must be authorized to speak on behalf of the organization or the
organization must be shown to have somehow negligently allowed that person to speak for the
organization. If a rogue operator, directly against policy or orders not to speak, defames someone, her
employer generally should not be held responsible under respondeat superior.

It may be that Mr. Harkins could do discovery to determine who leaked the matter to the press and what
their authority was, but in a SLAPP motion, discovery is only allowed after noticed motion setting out the
need, the good cause, and the specific discovery requested. There was no such request in this case.

Third, Harkins has not shown evidence that the statements contained in the press were false. The basic
facts of making the concoction, providing it to Angel’s pitchers, providing it to visiting pitchers, MLB’s
interpretations of the rules, and so on are not contested. Further, they are not defamatory on their face.
Essentially what is claimed to be unfair is that Mr. Harkins was punished for it when others were not and
that he should not have been fired for it. That may be a basis for an employment action, but not for
defamation.

The court grants the Special Motion to Strike the First and Second Causes of Action in the Complaint.

Court orders clerk to give notice.

DATE: 01/25/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 3

DEPT: C13 Calendar No.