In Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1141, the California Supreme Court required the trial court to modify an injunctive order that forbade the defendant from making "defamatory" comments, and explained that a court determination of defamatory effect was required, and "the injunction must not prevent the defendant from presenting her grievances to government officials. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is 'among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.' " (Id. at pp. 1160-1161.) The court returned the matter to the trial court, with directions to issue a narrower injunctive order, e.g., prohibiting defendant from "'from making the specified defamatory statements about Plaintiff to third persons other than governmental officials with relevant enforcement responsibilities.'" (Ibid.) The California Supreme Court held that "following a trial at which it is determined that the defendant defamed the plaintiff, the court may issue an injunction prohibiting the defendant from repeating the statements determined to be defamatory. Such an injunction, issued only following a determination at trial that the enjoined statements are defamatory, does not constitute a prohibited prior restraint of expression." (Id. at pp. 1155-1156.) The Court, sitting without a jury, made factual findings that the defendant had repeatedly defamed a business entity (a restaurant), and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from making certain specified defamatory statements about the restaurant. (Id. at pp. 1144-1146.) Each of the prohibited statements was determined at trial to be false. (Ibid.) The California Supreme Court held that although other aspects of the injunction were overbroad, the defendant's "right to free speech would not be infringed by a properly limited injunction prohibiting defendant from repeating statements about plaintiff that were determined at trial to be defamatory." (Balboa Island, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1144.) The court explained: " 'Once specific expressional acts are properly determined to be unprotected by the first amendment, there can be no objection to their subsequent suppression or prosecution.' " (Id. at p. 1156.) Thus, "an injunction issued following a trial that determined that the defendant defamed the plaintiff that does no more than prohibit the defendant from repeating the defamation, is not a prior restraint and does not offend the First Amendment." (Id. at p. 1148.) The court emphasized that "In determining whether an injunction restraining defamation may be issued ... it is crucial to distinguish requests for preventive relief prior to trial and posttrial remedies to prevent repetition of statements judicially determined to be defamatory. ... 'The attempt to enjoin the initial distribution of a defamatory matter meets several barriers, the most impervious being the constitutional prohibitions against prior restraints on free speech and press. ... In contrast, an injunction against continued distribution of a publication which a jury has determined to be defamatory may be more readily granted. The simplest procedure is to add a prayer for injunctive relief to the action for damages. ... Since the constitutional problems of a prior restraint are not present in this situation, and the defendant has not been deprived of a jury determination, injunctions should be available as ancillary relief for ... personal and political defamations.' " (Id. at p. 1158.) In Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen (2007) the trial court's injunction restricted the defendant from repeating the statements found to be defamatory at trial. (Balboa Island, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1146.) The California Supreme Court held these provisions were overbroad, explaining: "The injunction must not prevent the defendant from presenting her grievances to government officials. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is 'among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.' Accordingly, the paragraph ... which prohibits the defendant 'from making the specified defamatory statements about Plaintiff to third persons' must be modified to prohibit the defendant 'from making the specified defamatory statements about Plaintiff to third persons other than governmental officials with relevant enforcement responsibilities.' " (Id. at pp. 1160-1161.)In Balboa Island Village Inn v. Lemen (2007) Cal.4th 2007 DAR 5805 (April 26, 2007), the California Supreme Court upheld an injunction against speech judicially determined to be defamatory, ruling such an injunction is not an unconstitutional prior restraint per se and does not offend the First Amendment. (Balboa Island, Cal.4th at p. 2006 DAR at pp. 5806, 5808-5809.) However, the court ruled the injunction at issue was overly broad because it applied not just to the defendant Lemen, but to her " 'agents, all persons acting on her behalf or purporting to act on her behalf and all persons in active concert and participation with her,' " even though there was no evidence to support a finding that anyone other than Leman had defamed the plaintiff. (Balboa Island, 2007 DAR at p. 5812.) Further, the court held the injunction, which prevented Lemen from making defamatory statements to " 'third persons,' " could not prevent Lemen from presenting her grievances to the government and thus modified it to prevent her from making such statements to third persons " 'other than government officials with relevant enforcement responsibilities.' " (Ibid.)