a probability of success on their claim before proceeding. The district court initially denied American Press’s Article 971 motion, and American Press requested reconsideration. The district court granted reconsideration and again denied American Press’s motion in a more detailed opinion. American Press then filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s order denying its Article 971 motion. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Louisiana law, including the nominally-procedural Article 971, governs this diver sity case. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 804 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); Welborn v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 685, 687 (5th Cir.2007) (per curiam); cf. United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963, 972-73 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Thomas v. Fry’s Elecs., Inc., 400 F.3d 1206,
holding that in california the oneyear statute applies to a  1983 action holding that even though  24 only refers to actions in state court it applies to state claims brought in federal court holding that privilege applies in similar factual circumstances holding that a similar motion to strike under california state law applies in federal court recognizing that federal courts are bound by pronouncements of the california supreme court on applicable state law