A judge in California has denied a request by specimen supplier company StemExpress to access the videos and documents gathered by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) in its sting operations on Planned Parenthood, which is accused of harvesting and selling foetal remains to medical researchers.

Judge Joanne O'Donnell of the Superior Court of the State of California said granting StemExpress' request for injunction, which would prevent CMP from releasing its videos showing StemExpress employees, would violate the anti-abortion group's First Amendment rights, according to LifeSiteNews.

Last July 28, O'Donnell issued a temporary restraining order against CMP from releasing other secretly recorded videos of StemExpress employees taken at a restaurant last May.

StemExpress maintained that it complies with all laws.

"Written donor consent is required for any donation, including bone marrow, tissue of all types or blood," the company said in a statement.

The company provides "stem cells and other human tissue critical to medical research," it said.

The latest court decision was welcomed by pro-life activists.

"The Court has rightly stopped StemExpress from using a meritless lawsuit to try to silence the Center for Medical Progress," said Casey Mattox, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom. "Americans have a right to know the truth about Planned Parenthood and its business deals with StemExpress. This decision brings us one step closer to the day StemExpress and Planned Parenthood have been dreading."

According to Life Legal Defense Foundation Vice President of Legal Affairs Catherine Short, "as has been more than apparent from the videos that have been released, StemExpress and Planned Parenthood have plenty to hide. These videos not only expose the potential illegality of Planned Parenthood's actions, they expose the grisly, inhuman nature of Planned Parenthood's business."

In her ruling, O'Donnell said, "Plaintiff does not persuade the Court that the discovery it seeks is necessary to obtain the preliminary injunction. That is because it appears unlikely that the Court is going to grant the preliminary injunction,"

She added, "The injunction Plaintiff seeks would prevent Defendants from disseminating the videotapes" and "this proposed injunction would constitute a prior restraint on the Defendants' rights under the First Amendment and the parallel protections under the California Constitution."