Court Strikes Imperial Valley Data Center Developer’s Defamation Suit Against KPBS

-Editorial 

A San Diego County Superior Court judge has granted an anti-SLAPP motion filed by San Diego State University Research Foundation and KPBS reporter Kori Suzuki, striking a lawsuit brought by Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing LLC and its founder, Sebastian Rucci, over reporting on a proposed data center project in Imperial County.

Judge Cynthia Freeland found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on claims of defamation, false light invasion of privacy and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage stemming from three KPBS articles published between December 2025 and January 2026.

The lawsuit alleged the articles contained false and defamatory statements about the proposed data center project, including its water use, environmental review process and Rucci’s prior criminal cases in Ohio.

The court noted that the plaintiffs conceded the reporting involved an issue of public interest, satisfying the first requirement of California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The dispute centered on whether the plaintiffs could show they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.

Freeland concluded they could not.

The ruling found that KPBS accurately reported the project’s estimated daily water demand of 750,000 gallons and that the plaintiffs did not establish the reporting was false because they intended to use reclaimed water. The judge wrote that while the articles initially did not mention plans to use reclaimed water, the reporter said he had been unable to verify an agreement for that water source before publication, and a later article included the company’s statements that the project would rely on reclaimed water.

Regarding environmental review, the court found the reporting accurately described the company’s effort to pursue ministerial approval, which would exempt the project from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, as well as the legal challenge brought by the City of Imperial. The judge ruled the plaintiffs failed to show the articles contained false or defamatory statements about the approval process.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claims concerning reporting on Rucci’s past criminal cases, finding that the articles accurately stated that some felony charges had been dismissed because the cases took too long to reach trial. The judge wrote that news organizations are not required to include every detail surrounding criminal proceedings and noted the articles also included Rucci’s explanation that he believed he had been unfairly targeted.

For purposes of the motion, the plaintiffs acknowledged that Rucci was a limited-purpose public figure. As a result, the court said they were required to present clear and convincing evidence that the reporting was published with actual malice. Freeland concluded the plaintiffs failed to present evidence showing Suzuki knew any statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The court also found the reporting was protected under California’s fair report privilege, which shields fair and true reports of official proceedings.

Because the defamation claim failed, the court ruled that the plaintiffs’ remaining claims, which relied on the same underlying allegations, also could not proceed.