3430. Noerr-Pennington Doctrine

3430. "Noerr-Pennington" Doctrine Instruction No 1 Request by Plaintiff Given as Proposed Refused Withdrawn Request by Defendant Given as Modified Requested by Given on Court's Motion Judge Instruction No 1 [Name of defendant] claims that [his/her/its] agreement with [name of alleged coparticipant] did not violate the law because [he/she/it] was trying in good faith to influence government action. [Name of plaintiff] claims that this action was a sham or a pretext to restrain competition. To establish [his/her/its] claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove both of the following: 1. 2. That [name of defendant]'s actions before [name of governmental body] were undertaken without regard to the merits; and That the reason [name of defendant] engaged in [specify the petitioning activity, e.g., "filing an objection to an environmental impact report"] was to use the [specify the claimed process, e.g., "environmental agency approval"] process to harm [name of plaintiff] by [specify the manner of harm, e.g., "delaying [name of plaintiff]'s entry into the market"], rather than to obtain a successful outcome from that process. ________________________________________________________________________________ New September 2003