SAN FRANCISCO—A California appeals court rejected a Bay Area tech CEO’s appeal to revive his defamation lawsuit against a reporter for publishing a court-sealed police report of the CEO’s arrest on suspicion of domestic violence.

A panel of three judges on Sep. 29 rejected Maury Blackman’s appeal and agreed with an earlier decision by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Christine Van Aken to dismiss the lawsuit against news and commentary platform Substack, Amazon Web Services, journalist Jack Poulson, and Tech Inquiry.

The appeal was rejected under the First Amendment and California’s anti-SLAPP law, an acronym for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.”

Blackman appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing that an arrest report that had been sealed by court order overrode Poulson’s right to disclose the incident.

“The press is responsible for reporting on government operations, including those of the police, and, by publicly releasing the incident report without restriction, the government impliedly determined its dissemination was in the public interest,” the justices wrote in the opinion.

On Sept. 14, 2023, Poulson published an article on the arrest of then-Premise Data CEO Blackman in December 2021, with a copy of the police report that Poulson said was obtained through an unsolicited message by a confidential source in early September 2023.

Blackman informed Substack Inc., a news and commentary platform that hosted Poulson’s article in November 2023, that the police report had been sealed. Through counsel, Blackman also contacted Poulson and Tech Inquiry, a company Poulson owned, and requested that they remove the report in September 2024, according to the court document.

The document was placed under seal by San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Carolyn Gold on Feb. 17, 2022. Under California Penal Code 851.92(c), a person who “disseminates information relating to a sealed arrest” may be subject to a civil penalty.

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu’s Office sent a letter to Substack on Sept. 19, 2024, titled “Notice of Publication of Sealed Document,” requesting the company immediately remove the police report and its contents.

On Oct. 3, 2024, Blackman filed a lawsuit against Poulson and Substack, Amazon Web Services, and Tech Inquiry, seeking the defendants’ removal of the police report, claiming that reporting of the arrest was not truthful because the judge ruled “the arrest [was] deemed not to have occurred.”

Blackman resigned as Premise Data CEO in December 2023, following Poulson’s multiple reports related to the arrest.

“If a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information,” the appellate court panel of judges quoted a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling involving privacy rights and freedom of the press.

“This legal principle applies to protect Poulson’s publications,” presiding justice Tracie Brown wrote.

Poulson, whose journalism focused on the intersection of technology and national security, published a series of reports on Premise Data’s contracts with the federal government and its possible role in countries such as Ukraine and Venezuela.

“Premise Data’s work for the federal government was a matter of public interest, and Poulson’s articles implicated this work,” panel judges wrote in the opinion. “The harder question is whether Blackman’s arrest was also an issue of public interest.”

Blackman said his arrest was a purely private matter with no connection to his work for Premise Data.

Poulson argued that Blackman’s role as CEO for an entity paid to gather data abroad for the federal government, and his security clearance in connection with this role, placed Blackman in a position of public trust.

The judges were in favor of Poulson’s argument.

Poulson wrote to the public affairs office of the U.S. Special Operations Command for comment on whether Blackman’s arrest violated any Department of Defense policies governing security clearances.

Poulson had not received a response by the time he published an article on the topic in November 2023.

The panel of three judges wrote in the Sep. 29 opinion, “we conclude that speech can implicate an issue of public interest even though statutory protections exist to keep that information confidential.”

The Epoch Times contacted Blackman’s attorney David Marek for comment but did not hear back by publication time.

The Appellate Court also upheld the attorney’s fees. Blackman should pay the defendants over $426,000, according to a Sept. 11, 2025, ruling.