Too Much Media, LLC v. Hale, No. L2736-08 (N.J. Super. 2008).

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Mead v. Gaston Gazette

N.C. court won’t force newspaper to I.D. online commentator
The Associated Press
Gaston County Superior Court Judge Calvin Murphy ruled the Gaston Gazette did not have to tell the attorney for a murder suspect who a commentator was on an article about the case.
http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/08/n-c-court-wont-force-newspaper-to-i-d-online-commentator/

See also:



North Carolina Superior Court Holds State Shield Law Protects Identities of Newspaper Website Commenters
Newsroom Law Blog
http://www.newsroomlawblog.com/2010/08/articles/shield-laws/north-carolina-superior-court-holds-state-shield-law-protects-identities-of-newspaper-website-commenters/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewsroomLawBlog+%28Newsroom+Law+Blog%29&utm_content=Bloglines

Pa. Comm. Pleas: Judge orders identities of commenters be revealed
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Anonymous bloggers beware. You may not be as anonymous as you think. Forward Township Supervisor Thomas DeRosa has won a court victory in the action that he filed in November to uncover the identities of people who posted comments on an online bulletin board that he said defamed him.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10224/1079435-455.stm?cmpid=business.xml

Juzwiak v. Doe

N.J. Super. App. Div.: Recipient of Offensive E-Mails Can't Force Yahoo to Name Sender

New Jersey Law Journal

The ruling ... instructs how e-mails fit into the contours of the decade-old precedent that allowed for unmasking anonymous posters of injurious comments on the Web if certain tests are met.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202464260189&Recipient_of_Offensive_EMails_Cant_Force_Yahoo_to_Name_Sender

-- Decision: Juzwiak v. Doe: http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nj/Juzwiak-a2302-09.pdf

N.C. Super.: Ruling upholds online confidentiality

Charlotte Observer

News organizations would not be forced to give up the identities of online commenters on news articles, according to a pre-motion ruling in Gaston County Superior Court this week.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/31/1593029/ruling-upholds-confidentiality.html#ixzz0vSUcz6GS

Hersh v. Cohen

N.Y. Sup.: Should Anonymous Comments be a Right? 
PC World 
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is fighting in another case to keep anonymous commenting safe from sweeping subpoenas. A New York couple has issued dragnet subpoenas to Google and Yahoo demanding the identities of users behind 10 email accounts, 30 blog operators, website administrators, and the identities of anyone who had ever commented on those sites.
----Electronic Frontier Foundation's Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Quash

Corbett v. Twitter

Corbett v. Twitter

STATUS: Dropped

Pennsylvania prosecutors sought a grand jury subpoena to Twitter, demanding the identity of two account holders , allegedly because they criticized the state attorney general. They said the identity of the Twitterers mattered if one was a defendant in a political corruption investigation, because it would show the defendant had a bad attitude that should earn him a higher sentence. According toa spokesman, the grand jury subpoena was dropped on May 21, 2010.

The two Twitterers, CasablancaPA and bfBarbie both received an e-mail from Twitter on Tuesday saying the company would respond tot he subpoena in a week 'unless we receive notice from you that a motion to quash the subpoena has been filed or that this matter is otherwise resolved."

Links and court documents
Subpoena (May 6, 2010)
Pennsylvania AG Dropping Twitter Subpoena, Wired, May 21, 2010
Pennsylvania Attorney General Tries to Unmask Twitter Critics, Wired, May 19, 2010

Ward v. Cisco Systems, No. 2007-2502-A (Tex. Dist. Ct., Gregg County filed Nov. 7, 2007)
Status: Withdrawn

Eric Albritton and T. John Ward, Jr., two attorneys representing a company which claims that Cisco violated its patents (in ESN, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Civil No. 07-00156 (E.D.Tex. stipulated dismissal Nov. 2, 2007)) both filed their own lawsuits against the author of the Patent Troll Tracker blog (www.trolltracker.blogspot.com; now members only).

The defamation suits claim that a posting on the blog defamed the attorneys by alleging that although the patent suit had been filed on Oct. 15, 2007 (the day before the patent at issue was granted), the attorneys got the court clerk to change the date to Oct. 16, 2007 in order to avoid having the case dismissed. (They parties eventually agreed to a stipulated dismissal of the patent case in Texas, although another case in Connecticut is still pending.)

Ward initially sued the anonymous blogger as John Doe, and sought to obtain the blogger’s identity by seeking to depose Google. But on Feb. 23 -- after Chicago attorney Ray Niro offered a reward for the identity of the blog’s author and the blogger received an e-mail threatening to identify him -- the blogger identified himself as Rick Frenkel, an attorney who held the position of director of intellectual property at Cisco. Ward then amended his complaint to name Frenkel and his employer.

Later, Ward withdrew the Texas state case, and filed a federal suit in Arkansas against the same defendants.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1205491400004&rss=newswire
http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/209237-patent-troll-tracker-sued-for-defamation
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080312/020814510.shtml
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/03/troll-tracker-d.html
http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2008/03/judge-wards-son.html
http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2008/03/ward-jr-may-hav.html
http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/legal/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=210003653&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All
Complaint: http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/files/Ward_v_Cisco_Gregg_complaint.pdf
Docket: http://co.gregg.tx.us/OdysseyPA/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=246928

Essent PRMC, L. P. v. John Does 1-10, No. 76357 (Tex. Dist. Ct., 62nd Dist. (Lamar County) filed June 19, 2007).
Status: Pending; request to identify anonymous blogger re-filed

The corporate owner of the Paris Regional Medical Center in Paris, Tex. sued the blogger who goes by the alias Frank Pasquale and “fac_p,” and posts to a blog named “the-paris-site” (the-paris-site.blogspot.com), alleging defamation and violations of patient privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA). Posts on the blog accused the hospital of various improprieties, including Medicare fraud. As part of the suit, the hospital subpoenaed the blog owners’ Internet service provider to reveal the blogger’s name. The trial court granted that request, but an appeals court held that Essent must meet a higher standard of proof before it could discover the blogger’s identity. In Re Does 1-10, 242 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. App.-Texarkana Dec. 12, 2007). The result is that Essent was permitted to renew its request after it obtains more.information; the motion is still pending.

Links and Court Documents:
Docket: http://68.89.102.225/Scripts/UVlink.isa/lamar/WEBSERV/CivilSearch?action%253Dview%26track%253D65369
Appellate decision denying disclosure: http://www.6thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=9055
http://www.cyberslapp.org/cases/page.cfm?pageID=76
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5377838.html
http://www.theparisnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=682838f39bee1784
http://www.theparisnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=07f53629d08b1219
http://www.theparisnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=acbc503b3da6c582
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/09/21/0921blogsuit.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=52
http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5149745.html
http://theparisnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=4f11e481650ad4cd

Fix Wilson Yard et al. v. City of Chicago et al., No. 08 CH 45023 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Co. subpoenas filed Jan. 12, 2009).
Status: Pending.

In connection with a lawsuit filed by a community group in opposition to a redevelopment plan for the Wilson Yard area of Chicago, the developer subpoenaed Google for information regarding two anonymous Chicago-based blogs (www.uptownupdate.com; www.whatthehelen.com), and two additional websites operated by the neighborhood block club (www.buenaparkneighbors.org and www.uncchicago.org). The subpoenas ask for all documents pertaining to the six Uptown residents named as plaintiffs in the original lawsuit. In addition, the neighborhood organizations were asked to turn over all posts, in any form, relating to the Wilson Yard development.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/holsten-v-uptown-update-and-what-helen
Docket: https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/FindDock.asp?NCase=2008-CH-45023&SearchType=0&Database=3&case_no=&=&=&=&PLtype=1&sname=&CDate=

In re Subpoena Issued Pursuant to The Digital Millennium Copyright Action To: 43SB.Com, LLC, No. MS-07-6236, 2007 WL 4335441 (D. Idaho Dec. 7, 2007)
Status: Subpeona for information to reveal anonymous bloggers quashed in part

In a posting on the 43rd State Blues / Democrats for Idaho blog (www.43rdstateblues.com), an anonymous blogger with the pseudonym “Tom Paine,” posted comments reporting the “unverified” “rumor” that court documents showed “a deliberate series of payoffs for questionable expenses & honoraria to US Senator Larry Craig” by Melaleuca, Inc.

Melaleuca sent a letter to the website’s administrator demanding that the posting be removed. The original posting was removed, but the demand letter itself was posted on the site by someone with the pseudonym “d2.”

Melaleuca then sent a letter to the host of the website, seeking removal of the letter. The letter cited the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (“DMCA”), which allows copyright holders to demand that website hosts removed copyrighted material posted by users to a website. Melaleuca also sought the identity of “Tom Paine.”

On June 7, 2007, Melaleuca sent a pre-litigation subpoena to counsel for the website owner, demanding the production of all server logs and other information that could be used to identify “Tom Paine” and “d2.” 43SB filed a motion to quash the subpoena with the federal district court., which partially denied the motion to quash as to “sb”, thus requiring 43SB to reveal the information that could be used to identify “sb” (who had posted the takedown demand letter). But the court also partially granted the motion in regards to information regarding “Tom Paine,” since that person’s posting – the original rumors – were not subject to the DMCA takedown provisions.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2007/court-rejects-bid-use-dmca-bypass-first-amendment-protection-anonymous-speech
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/12/takedown_letter.htm
http://www.addict3d.org/news/265332/Copyright,%20Defamation,%20Bloggers,%20DMCA,%20Safe%20Harbors,%20Cease-And-Desists%20And%20Anonymity...%20Oh%20My!
District Court opinion partially granting motion to quash subpoena: http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-11-16-Report%20and%20Recommendation%20of%20Magistrate%20Judge%20--%20District%20of%20Idaho.pdf

Fulbright & Jaworski v. EarthLink Legal Dept., No. 07-MI-0097 (N.D. Ga. filed 2007).
Status: Dismissed.

In an effort pursue copyright claims against an anonymous blogger who posted several questions from the 2006 Multistate Bar Examination on the “Tab and Brandy” blog (tabandbrandy.blogspot.com; now removed), the organization that creates the exam (the National Conference of Bar Examiners) subpoenaed Google (owner of the Blogger service that hosted the blog) to obtain the blogger’s IP address. After obtaining the address, the conference’s law firm filed suit against Earthlink, identified through the IP address as the blogger’s Internet service provider, to identify the blogger. The case was dismissed the same day it was filed; it is unclear whether Eartlink provided the information.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/national-conference-bar-examiners-v-earthlink
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1176973462175

Cahill v. Doe, No. 04C-011-022 (Del. Sup. Ct., New Castle Co. dismissed Oct. 10, 2005).
Status: Dismissed with prejudice, Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005).

After viewing negative comments posted by an anonymous commenter on the Smyrna/Clayton Issues Blog, City Councilman Patrick Cahill filed a John Doe lawsuit and obtained a court order to compel Comcast to identify the poster. On appeal the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a trial court decision that used a good faith standard to deny Doe’s request for an emergency protection order. In dismissing the case with prejudice, the Supreme Court held that before an anonymous commenter could be identified the plaintiff had to provide evidence to support each element of his claim to an extent that created triable issues of fact. This case was the first time a state’s high court had addressed the issue of the rights of an anonymous blog commenter.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20051007151046741
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/cahill-v-doe
Appellant Brief: http://www.cyberslapp.org/documents/CahillvDoeAppBriefasfiled.pdf
Amicus Brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/275487/00882doe-v-cahill-amicus
Order dismissing case: http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/(idavx455jyc4ibyb1g20bb45)/download.aspx?ID=67130

In re Grand Jury Proceedings; Joshua Wolf, No. 06-90064 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2006)
Status: After being jailed for 226 days for contempt, blogger was released after agreeing to post material on his web site

A protest on July 8, 2005 in San Francisco tied to a meeting of world leaders in Scotland, turned violent, with a police officer assaulted and suffering a fractured skull. There was also an alleged “potential attempted arson” of a San Francisco city police car. Since the police car had been purchased with federal funds, a federal grand jury began investigating whether a federal crime had been committed. During the course of its investigation, federal law enforcement learned that videoblogger and freelance journalist Joshua Wolf had videotaped portions of the protest, and posted portions of his footage on his website and sold a video clip to Indymedia, NBC, and television stations KTVU and KRON. On Feb. 1, 2006, Wolf was served with a grand jury subpoena ordering him to appear before the grand jury with all his footage. Wolf refused, and on Aug. 1, 2006, the District Court for the Northern District of California ordered that he be held in civil contempt and jailed for his refusal to produce the footage that had not already been shown. Wolf appealed the district court’s contempt order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the contempt order on Sept. 8, 2006. Wolf v. U.S., No. 06-16403, 2006 WL 2631398 (9th Cir. Sept. 8, 2006) (O’Scannlain, Graber, Clifton, JJ.). On April 3, 2007, Wolf was released after he agreed to post the video online, thus making it available to prosecutors, as long as he was not required to testify before the grand jury.

Links and Court Documents:
Court documents available at http://www.medialaw.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Hot_Topics/Reporters_Privilege/Wolf/Wolf.htm

Eclipse Aviation Corp. v. Doe, No. 108CV110380 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Co. dismissed July 31, 2008).

Status: Withdrawn by plaintiff

Eclipse Aviation, which manufactures very light jet aircraft, sued several John Does in New Mexico state court, alleging that they were current and former employees who had violated their confidentiality agreements by contributing and posting comments to the Eclipse Aviation Critic blog, http://eclipseaviationcritic.blogspot.com, which was active until 2007, and its successor, the Eclipse Aviation Critic Next Generation blog, www.eclipsecriticng.blogspot.com. Eclipse then filed a related action in California state court, seeking a subpoena to compel Google to reveal information to identify 28 “John Does” who contributed to the sites. Eclipse obtained the subpoena from the California court, but Richard J. Lucibella, one the contributors to the site, challenged the subpoena. In August 2008, as part of a shake-up of company management, the company withdrew its lawsuit.

Links and Court Documents:

http://www.charterx.com/resources/article.aspx?id=3286

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/302137nm04-22-08.htm

Docket: http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa6.asp?full_case_number=1-08-CV-110380

Motion to quash subpoena: http://www.charterx.com/mediafiles/store/58773/128547467269195924.pdf

Coverage of settlement: http://www.charterx.com/resources/article.aspx?id=3444

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Doe, No. 1-04-CV-032178, 20005 WL 578641, 33 Media L. Rep. 1449 (Cal. Super. Mar. 11, 2005) (granting discovery motion), rev’d sub. nom. O'Grady, et al. v. Super. Ct. of Santa Clara County , 139 Cal.App.4th 1423, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 72, 34 Media L. Rep. 208 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. May 26, 2006).
Status: Discovery motion denied; lawsuit against alleged leakers withdrawn

In Dec. 2004, Apple Computer, Inc., filed suit against numerous unknown entities in connection with the leak of confidential information prior to the release of an Apple product codenamed "Asteroid." The information, which Apple claims are trade secrets, was posted on a number of websites, including AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/) and PowerPage (http://www.powerpage.org/). Apple sued the unknown people who leaked the information. In an attempt to determine who these people were, Apple subpoenaed Nfox, the e-mail service provider for PowerPage, seeking e-mail messages that could identify the source(s) of the leaked information. The trial court ruled that Apple is entitled to subpoena an e-mail provider to try and identify the source(s), but declined to determine whether the bloggers qualified as journalists under the California shield law. But the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that bloggers and webmasters have the same protections against divulging confidential sources as traditional media. In July 2006, Apple announced that it would not appeal the ruling; in January 2007, Apple withdrew the case.

Links and Court Documents:
Docket available at: http://www.sccaseinfo.org/
Case information and updates: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/
Cal. App. decision at http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/H028579.pdf

Garrett v. Better Publications, Civil No. CL08000197-00 (Va. Cir. Ct., Buckingham Co. subpoena to blogger Jan. 15, 2009).
Status: Subpeona pending.

In December 2008, Thomas Garrett sued The Hook weekly newspaper for its coverage of a state criminal case against him. The filing of the lawsuit was covered by various newspapers and blogs, including the cvillenews.com blog, which focuses on community news in Charlottesville, Va. Garrett then subpoenaed blogger Waldo Jaquith, seeking information used to write the blog’s article on the lawsuit, and the identity and IP addresses of all commenters to and viewers of the article. Jaquith has filed a motion to quash the subpoena, and has invoked Virginia’s reporter’s privilege.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/virginia-blogger-targeted-outrageous-subpoena
http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2009/01/motion-to-quash/
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=9996
http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/CaseDetails.cfm?cID=524

In re Petition of MP, No. 07-07934-H (Tex. Dist. Ct., Dallas County filed 2007).
Status: Discovery of anonymous blogger denied

The owner of a country club in Del Mar, Cal. filed a petition seeking on order to identify the operator and the authors of several anonymous comments on the Del Mar Country Club Sucks blog (dmccsucks.blogspot.com; no longer available). The blogger moved to quash the subpoena, and the court granted the motion.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/CaseDetails.cfm?cID=451
Order granting motion: http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACF428D.pdf

Arthur v. Turner, No. 08-MC-00006 (E.D. Tex. filed April 18, 2008).
Status: Pending.

Pursuing her federal lawsuit against Howard K. Stern, Virgie Arthur sought information from Nelda Turner of the “Rose Speaks” blog (www.rosespeaks.com) and her husband. The Turners responded with a motion to move the entire case to the Eastern District of Texas.

Links and Court Documents:
http://annanicoleandhowardkstern.com/2008/05/turners-ask-for-change-of-venue-in-virgie-arthur-lawsuit/

Swartz v. Doe, No. 08C431 (Tenn. Dist. Ct., Davidson County filed Feb. 11. 2008).
Status: Motion to dismiss pending

Don and Terry Swartz sued the anonymous owner and posters on the “Stop Swartz” blog (stopswartz.blogspot.com), which accuses the couple of “ruining” the Old Hickory neighborhood of Nashville, Tenn. The Swartzes sell homes in the community through their web site, www.oldhickoryvillage.org; Don Swartz is also secretary of the Historic Old Hickory Village Neighborhood Association. In March 2009, the court indicated that it was sympathetic to motions to quash the effort to reveal the anonymous posters and to dismiss the case entirely.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/swartz-v-does
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080212/NEWS01/802120365
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=102307
Video of motion hearing: http://blip.tv/file/1879086