McKee v. Laurion

UPDATE ( 2/1/13)

STATUS: Court of Appeals Decision Revered.

Minnesota Supreme Court: Online Post Calling Doctor "a Real Tool" is Protected Speech
Associated Press
The decision reversed a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision that would have let the doctor's lawsuit proceed to trial.
http://www.twincities.com/minnesota/ci_22483221/minnesota-supreme-court-online-post-calling-doctor-real?source=rss

Opinion:
http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/current/OPA111154-0130.pdf

 
UPDATE ( 9/3/12)


STATUS: Minnesota Supreme Court hears oral arguments about whether case should go to trial.

Minn. Sup.:Can You Tag Your Doctor a Tool Online
Star Tribune
http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=168552176

UPDATE (1/27/12)STATUS: Appeals court sends case back to trial.

Minn. App.: Duluth Doctor's Defamation Suit Sent to Jury
The Associated Press
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/01/24/duluth-doctor-defamation/

>>Opinion: McKee v. Laurion
http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa/current/opa111154-012312.pdf


UPDATE ( 9/15/2011)

STATUS: Date scheduled for Oral Argument at Minnesota Court of Appeals.

--Notice of Oral Argument

http://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/docket/docketEntry.do?action=edit&deID=586764&csNameID=71108&csIID=78382


UPDATE (7/7/2011)

STATUS: Plaintiff stated on June 25, 2011, that he will appeal

Minn. Dist.: Duluth doctor appealing judge's decision to toss out defamation suit

Duluth News Tribune
A Duluth physician whose defamation suit against a former patient’s son was thrown out of district court said he has no choice but to file an appeal. Dr. David McKee, a neurologist with Northland Neurology and Myology, said he still is being targeted in online attacks related to the lawsuit he filed in June 2010 against Dennis Laurion. . . McKee said a sudden concentration of unfavorable critiques about him cropped up online shortly before Sixth District Judge Eric Hylden dismissed the suit. “It appears that Mr. Laurion made over 100 adverse postings on the Internet once he became aware that he was going to receive a favorable decision on the motion for summary judgment,” McKee said. “Appealing seems to me the only way to curb the activities of this malicious person.”
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/202704/


STATUS: Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted on April 28th, 2011

Minn. Dist.: Judge Tosses Suit Over Bad Review of Doctor

On Point News
A Minnesota judge has boosted free-speech protections for online commentary by finding a neurologist cannot sue a patient's son over criticisms of his bedside manner that allegedly damaged his professional reputation. Dennis Laurion posted comments on doctor rating websites in which he vented about how Dr. David McKee of Duluth, Minn., treated his father while performing a neurological examination on him. Kenneth Laurion, 83, was recovering from a stroke at a hospital.
http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/Judge-Dismisses-Suit-Over-Bad-Review-of-Doctor-s-Work.html

--Decision: McKee v. Laurion
http://www.onpointnews.com/docs/Mckee-v-Laurion.pdf

Asia Economic Institute v. Xcentric Ventures LLC

STATUS: Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted on May 4, 2011

C.D. Cal.: Ripoff Report Gets Another Big 47 USC 230 Win

Technology and Marketing Blog (Eric Goldman)
Keeping alive its truly remarkable winning streak, Ripoff Report got yet another decisive 47 USC 230 victory. This challenge came from Asia Economic Institute (AEI), suing over 6 posts to Ripoff Report from former AEI employees complaining about the work environment. The case raised some eyebrows last summer when the judge gave AEI a chance to plead a RICO claim. That ruling got some plaintiffs excited that a conspiracy theory might finally expose Ripoff Report to liability. No matter, as it turns out, because AEI still lost on summary judgment.
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/06/ripoff_report_g_2.htm

--Opinion: Asia Economic Institute v. Xcentric Ventures LLC
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54737754/Asia-Economic-Institute-v-Xcentric-Summary-Judgment

See also

--Order Granting In Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment: Asia Economic Institute v. Xcentric Ventures LLC
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35081047/AEI-v-Xcentric-Summary-Judgment-Ruling

--First Amended Complaint: Asia Economic Institute v. Xcentric Ventures LLC
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35081088/AEI-v-Xcentric-First-Amended-Complaint

Devenyns v. Albero, No. 22C09001273 (Md. Cir. Ct., Wicomico County filed July 24, 2009).
Status: Summary judgment motion pending.

Wicomico County Detention Center director Douglas Devenyns sued Joseph Albero over an anonymous comment posted on his Salisbury News blog site (sbynews.com) claiming that Devenyns is a "sexual predator," who shortened the sentences of female inmates who had sex with him.

While Albero would normally be exempt from liability for comments posted to his site by others under section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, the suit claims that Albero lost this protection by selecting which comments submitted to the site would and would not be posted.

On Nov. 30, 2009, the court granted Albero's motion for summary judgment.

Links and Court Documents:
Detention Center director sues blogger (DelMarVa Now, July 30, 2009)
Detention Center director's lawsuit against blogger dismissed (DelMarVa Now,Dec. 1, 2009)

Saadi v. Maroun, No. 07-CV-01976 (M.D. Fla. filed Oct. 31, 2007).
Status: $90,000 verdict for plaintiff.

Lawyer Edward T. Saadi filed a complaint against his cousin Pierre Maroun, Hala Fakhre Maroun, and several anonymous defendants based on blog and forum postings that alleged that Saadi consorted with terrorists, diverted funds from a non-profit to support terrorism, hadn't gone to law school and had a teenage girlfriend. Later Saadi added Maroun’s International, LLC as a defendant.

A motion to dismiss the claims of defamation was denied on court findings that the statements were held out as factual, and not as opinions. Hala Maroun was subsequently dropped from the lawsuit. A defense motion for summary judgment was denied, and the case proceeded to trial.

After a three-day trial, the court dismissed the claims against Maroun's International.  The jury then found for Saadi and awarded $90,000: $30,000 in compensatory damages, and $60,000 in punitive damages.

The defendant has filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or a new trial.

Links and Court Documents:
Case Information (Citizen Media Law Project)
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed Mar. 30, 2008)
Judgment (filed Oct. 2, 2009)

Doninger v. Niehoff, No. HHB-CV-07-4014735-S (Conn. Super. Ct., filed July 16, 2007).

Doninger v. Niehoff, Civil No. 07-01129 (D. Conn. removed from state court July 26, 2007).

Status: Denial of preliminary injunction upheld; defense motion for summary judgment granted in part; appeal pending.

A high school student and her mother sued the principal of her daughter’s school and the superintendent of her school district after they barred the student from running for re-election as student secretary after she posted complaints to her blog about a student-planned concert that was canceled by school administrators.

The state case was moved to federal court in late July 2007. On Aug. 31, 2007, the federal trial court denied a preliminary injunction to force school administrators to allow the girl to run for office; the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling on May 30, 2008. Doninger v. Dept. of Homeland Security, No. 07-CV-3885 (2d Cir. 2008).

The case then returned to the trial court, which partially granted a defense motion for summary judgment on Jan. 15, 2009, leaving only a claim alleging that the student’s speech was chilled when she was prohibited from wearing a t-shirt with a message on it at school. The student has appealed the partial grant of summary judgment.

Links and Court Documents:

Case information: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/doninger-v-niehoff

http://www.rep-am.com/News/438521.txt

http://www.ctcentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18616270&BRD=1643&PAG=461&dept_id=10486&rfi=6

http://www.nbc30.com/news/13385544/detail.html

http://region19.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/05/30/second-circuit-upholds-punishment-of-high-school-student-for-out-of-school-web-entry/

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2008/11/13/news/a3-db.txt

State complaint: http://mirandamagazine.com/joomla/images//donninger%20lawsuit.pdf

State docket: http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DispDetail.asp?DocNum=HHB-CV-07-4014735-S

Federal district court decision denying injunction: http://www.splc.org/pdf/doningerdenial.pdf

Appellate decision affirming denial of injunction: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA3LTM4ODUgLWN2X29wbi5wZGY=/07-3885%20-cv_opn.pdf

J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District, Civil No. 2007-00585 (M.D. Pa. summary judgment granted Sept. 11, 2008).
Status: Appeal of summary judgment grant to defendants pending (argued June 2, 2009).

On a home computer, students J.S. and K.L. created and postred a fake MySpace page that appeared to be for the principal of their high school. The fake profile, which used the principal’s photograph but not his name, described him as a pedophile and a sex addict. The two girls were suspended from school for ten days.

One of the girls and her parents sued, arguing that the school could not discipline her for activity that occurred totally outside of school. The district court disagreed, holding that “as vulgar, lewd, and potentially illegal speech that had an effect on campus, we find that the school did not violate the plaintiff’s rights in punishing her for it even though it arguably did not cause a substantial disruption of the school.”

The plaintiffs appealed, and the case was argued before the court of appeals on June 2, 2009. No. 08-4138 (3rd Cir. appeal filed Oct. 6, 2008).

Links and Court Documents:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080922-judge-school-can-suspend-students-over-fake-myspace-profile.html
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202424549808
Docket: http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/pamdce/3:2007cv00585/67046/
Opinion granting summary judgment: http://howappealing.law.com/JSvsBlueMountainSD.pdf

Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil No. 06-526 (N.D. Ga. filed March 6, 2006).

Status: Summary judgment granted to plaintiff, 537 F.Supp.2d 1302 (March 21, 2008).

After Wal-Mart threatened to sue Charles Smith over his use of Wal-Mart’s name, logos and similar-looking logos on his web sites criticizing the company, (www.walocaust.com and www.walqaeda.com), Smith filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that his uses did not violate Wal-Mart’s copyrights. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and Wal-Mart sought transfer of the URLs to its control. The court granted summary judgment to Smith, and denied Wal-Mart’s motion, holding that Smith’s use of Wal-Mart’s trademarks were parodies, protected under the “fair use” copyright doctrine, and would not lead to confusion.

Links and Court Documents:

http://insidebusiness.freedomblogging.com/2008/03/21/wal-mart-as-bad-as-al-qaida/

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1206441810175

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/03/25/walmart_0326.html

Decision granting summary judgment: http://www.citizen.org/documents/WalmartDecision.pdf

Complaint and other court documents: http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/CaseDetails.cfm?cID=206

Parsi v. Hassan, Civil No. 08-00705 (D. D.C. filed April 25, 2008).

Status: Defendant's summary judgment motion denied, 2009 WL 252244 (D.D.C. Feb. 4, 2009).

Defendant Hassan Daioleslam published articles on his websites (“In Search of Truth: Reports on Mullahs's lobby in US” (www.iranianlobby.com); and hassandai3.blogspot.com) alleging that the National Iranian American Council and its president, Trita Parsi, was a front and lobbyist for the Iranian government. Parsi and the Council sued, and the court denied a defense motion for summary judgment.

Links and Court Documents:

http://irancoverage.com/2008/05/15/niac-files-defamation-lawsuit-against-hassan-daioleslam/

http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1119&Itemid=59

The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. v. Cooper, No. RG05203029 (Cal. Super., Alameda County filed 2005), appeal dismissed, No. A113601 (Cal. App., 1st Dist. July 13, 2006).
Status: Summary judgment granted to plaintiff.

In July 2004, Elisa D. Cooper discovered that internal, technical computer information available on a public web site maintained for computer maintenance purposes by her former employer, Kaiser Health Plan, included patient information. She posted a link to the data on her blog, Corporate Ethics (http://www.livejournal.com/users/corphq/), and later posted the information itself. She also filed a complaint with the federal Office of Civil Rights, which enforces the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). That office, in turn, notified Kaiser, which sought and eventually received a preliminary injunction against Cooper’s posting of the material, arguing that her dissemination of it violated the confidentiality agreement that Cooper signed while working for the company. The California Department of Managed Health Care then ordered Cooper to remove the material -- its first action against an individual, rather than a health plan, since the agency’s founding in 2000. The agency also fined Kaiser $200,000 for posting the patient data to a publicly-accessible site. In the suit against Cooper, the court granted summary judgment to Kaiser on Dec. 19, 2005. Cooper’s appeal of this was dropped.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.blogherald.com/2005/03/18/kaiser-permanente-sues-blogger-over-patient-information/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/24/BAGFIBU2AT1.DTL
http://www.thestandard.com/internetnews/002902.php
Docket available via http://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/

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

Guajome Park Academy, Inc. v. Duperry, Civil No. 06-658 (S.D Cal. filed March 24, 2006).
Status: Pending; settlement talks ongoing

In March 2006, the Guajome Park Academy, a charter school in Vista, Cal., sued a former employee and former student, alleging that they had improperly accessed the computer system containing student grades. In July, the former student settled. In November, the school amended its complaint to add the individuals, all former employees, who were behind the web site guajomeunderground.org, a bulletin board site where the grade information was posted along with allegations that a student’s grade was improperly changed. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied in an Aug. 16, 2007 ruling. In March 2009, the court ordered settlement negotiations.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/07/17/news/coastal/21_41_317_16_05.txt
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/07/18/news/top_stories/22_18_317_17_06.txt
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/11/07//news/sandiego/5_00_4311_6_06.txt
Amended complaint at http://www.nctimes.com/pdf/GUAJOMEVMcCulloch.pdf

Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer, No. 01-1752, 2004 WL 964163 (S.D. Cal. dismissed April 30, 2004), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005).
Status: Settled.

Defendant Michael Kremer, dissatisfied with hair restoration services at the Bosley Medical Institute, Inc., created a website (www.BosleyMedical.com; no longer existing) to complain. In 2000, the Institute filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization over Kremer’s use of an allegedly confusing URL for his site. WIPO ruled for Kremer, finding “legitimate fair use and free speech rights with respect to the use of the Domain Name for a criticism site.” Bosley Medical Group v. Kremer, Case No. D2000-1647 (WIPO Feb. 28, 2001). Then, in Sept. 2001 the company sued over Kremer’s use of its trademark “Bosley Medical” in federal court, and alleged that Kremer was “cybersquatting” (using a famous name as a web site URL in order to sell it to the entity most often associated with that name), which is actionable under Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. S.1125(d). The trial court dismissed all of the Institute’s claims. The Institute appealed, and the appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appeals court held that while Kremer’s noncommercial use of the trademark as a domain name was not actionable as infringement, but reversed on the cybersquatting claim and on the lower court’s dismissal of claims under state trademark law. In March 2007, the trial court denied Kremer’s motion for summary judgment on the cybersquatting claim and also denied his motion to dismiss the state law claims. 2007 WL 935708 (S.D.Cal. March 17, 2007). In July 2007, the parties settled.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case369.cfm
http://www.digestiblelaw.com/cybersquatting/blogQ.aspx?entry=2990
http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2005/04/05/im_not_only_a_member_of_the_hair_club_for_men_im_also.php
Appeals court decision: http://www.casp.net/cases/bosley.html

Port Arthur Independent School District v. Klein & Associates Political Relations, No. ______ (Tex. Dist Ct. Jefferson County 200_).
Status: Summary judgment for defendants affirmed, 92 S.W.3d 889 (Tex.App. - Beaumont 2002, pet'n den'd).

The school board of Port Arthur, Tex. sued Klein & Associates Political Relations after its political blog, “Southeast Texas Political Review” blog (setpoliticalreview.com), published a story stating that a “huge gang fight” had broken out at a Thomas Jefferson High School prom. The trial court judge granted summary judgment to the defendants on several grounds, including the finding that the school board, as a government entity, could not sue for libel. The judge reaffirmed this after the board filed a motion for a new trial. An appeals court affirmed (70 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002, no. pet.)). The blog author also countersued the district for libel and other claims; the trial court granted summary judgment for the school district on these claims, and an appeals court affirmed (92 S.W.3d 889 (Tex.App. - Beaumont 2002, pet'n den'd)).

ORIX Capital Markets, LLC v. Super Futures Equities, Inc., et. al., Civil No. 06-00271 (N.D. Tex. settled Feb. 10, 2009).
Status: $12.5 million jury award; undisclosed settlement immediately prior to verdict.

In 2001, Orix Capital Markets, a financing division of Wells Fargo, foreclosed on an apartment complex in Louisiana owned by Super Future Equities, Inc., a Nevada-based investor group in which the controlling shareholders are members of the Rafizadeh family. Orix also won a nearly $11 million judgment against Mondona Rafizadeh. Super Future Equities sued Orix and Wells Fargo in 2006, alleging that that the defendants consistently ignored their fiduciary responsibility is issuing mortgages. As a counterclaim in that suit, Orix alleged libel, business disparagement and other claims against the Rafizadehs and their companies; one of these was a libel claim over www.predatorix.com (now owned by Orix), a web site run by then-18-year-old Cyrus Rafizadeh, which stated that Orix and Weel Fargo financed mortgages irresponsibly. On Dec. 14, 2007, the court granted the Orix and Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment on all of Super Future Equities’ claims, and on March 18, 2008 the court dismissed all of the counterclaims, except for the libel per se claim over the web site. Trial on that claim began on Jan. 25, 2009, and on Feb. 6 the jury awarded $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. Immediately before the jury verdict was announced, the parties reached a confidential settlement which involved a substantial payment to a charitable organization run by Orix, a public apology, and turnover of the site.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29120776/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28830348/
http://www.houston-press.com/2007-03-29/news/uh-student-investigates-orix/print
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/021109dnbusdefame.3f3fc8f.html?npc
Ruling dismissing most counter claims: http://www.thelen.com/tlu/SuperFutureEquitiesVWellsFargo.pdf

Milo v. Martin, No. _______ (Tex. Dist. Ct., Montgomery County, 284th Dist. dismissed Dec. 31, 2008).
Status: Summary judgment granted to defendant

Community activist Walter Milo Sr. and Rev. Anthony Shelton sued the editors of The Watchdog, a print and web publication focusing on local issues in Conroe, Tex., for comments posted in the bulletin board section of the publication’s web site referring to Shelton as a “pulpit pimp” and alleging that Milo committed a drug crime in 2005. The court dismissed the case on the grounds that the publication was immune from liability under section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. Rev. Shelton has vowed to appeal the dismissal.

Links and Court Documents:
http://hcnonline.com/articles/2009/01/04/conroe_courier/news/watchdog0103.txt
http://www.hcnonline.com/articles/2009/01/11/conroe_courier/news/watchdog0111.txt

BidZirk, LLC v. Smith, Civil No. 06-109, 2007 WL 3119445 (D. S.C. summary judgment granted Oct. 22, 2007) (unpublished).
Status: Summary judgment granted to defendant (Oct. 22, 2007).

In March 2005, Philip Smith consigned several items to BidZirk, which places customer’s items for auction on ebay.com. Smith was dissatisfied with the prices he received for some of the items, and in January 2006, began publishing entries on his “Fix Your Thinking” blog (http://jackwhispers.blogspot.com), starting with one titled “You Gotta Be Berserk To Use An eBay Listing Company!,” listing his grievances with BidZirk. The postings included BizZerk’s logo. BidZerk and its owners sued for trademark infringement, defamation and invasion of privacy; Smith countersued for claims based on the BidZerk’s sales of his items. The trial court denied a preliminary injunction against use of the logo, which was affirmed by the 4th Circuit. (Nevertheless, Smith agreed to remove all but one of the logos.) The trial court then dismissed the counterclaims. The lawsuit continued on BidZerk’s original claims against Smith, until the court granted summary judgment to the defendant in Oct. 2007.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/bidzirk-llc-v-smith
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/11/blog_lawsuit_ov.htm
4th Cir. decision: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/061487.U.pdf

Citywide Sewer & Drain Service Corp. v. Carusone, No. 18160/2005 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau County dismissed Sept. 18, 2006).
Status: Summary judgment granted to defendant.
On Oct. 13, 2005, WPIX-TV in New York broadcast a consumer report focused on complaints against Citywide Sewer & Drain Service Corp. The next day, defendant Angelo Carusone – whose father had worked for the company, and himself had had a summer job there – posted an item titled “Citywide really is shitywide” on his blog (www.angelocarusone.com, now dormant), which repeated the allegations of the WPIX report. The company sued Carusone and his father for libel. A defense motion for summary judgment was granted on Sept. 18, 2006.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.angelocarusone.com/?p=102
Complaint: http://www.angelocarusone.com/files/1Complaint.pdf
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment: http://www.angelocarusone.com/files/4MotionSummaryJudgment.pdf

Woodhull v. Meinel, No. D-202-CV-200700346 (N.M. Dist. Ct. filed Jan. 11, 2007)
Status: Trial court grant of summary judgment reversed, No. 27,959 (N.M. App. Oct. 24, 2008).

Plaintiff sued over a statement about her posted on defendant’s web site, www.happyhacker.org, on Oct. 14, 2003, alleging that the plaintiff had solicited defendant to hack into the website of the University of Florida student newspaper’s web site and remove a particular article, but that defendant had told plaintiff that doing so would be illegal. Defendant repeated and summarized the same alleged incident in a new post on Jan. 6, 2006, which also included an e-mail from the editor of the newspaper. Plaintiff sued for defamation on Jan. 11, 2007. The trial court granted summary judgment, holding that claims against the first posting was barred by New Mexico’s three-year statute of limitations on defamation claims; that claims from the second posting were also barred by the statute of limitations and the “single publication rule;” and that the suit was barred by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

On appeal, the appeals court reversed the summary judgment as to the second posting, saying that the second posting was sufficiently different so that the “single publication rule” did not apply, and that whether the Communications Decency Act applies is a question of fact for a jury.

Links and Court Documents:
Case information and documents: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/woodhull-v-meinel

D’Elia v. Renna, No. L -003880-06 (N.J. Super. Ct., Union County filed Nov. 3, 2006).
Status: Dismissed.
Sebastian D’Elia filed a lawsuit for defamation against Tina Renna and Patricia Quattrocchi, regular posters on unioncountywatchdog.org, for allegedly injurious comments made on the website. On a similar motions by both parties, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on a failure to provide sufficient evidence of damages.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/delia-v-renna

Olson v. Brodkorb, No. 19-CX-06-006432 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Dakota County filed Jan. 4, 2006).
Status: Summary judgment granted to defendant.

Democratic public relations consultant Blois Olson sued Republican operative Michael Broadkorb, the blogger behind the site Minnesota Democrats Exposed (www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com), for libel. The suit stemmed from a report in late December posted on the blog by Broadkorb, who published the blog anonymously from July 2004 until he revealed his name when the lawsuit was filed. The post claimed that while Olson publicly criticized the Congressional campaign of Coleen Rowley in several news stories, Olsen did not reveal that the campaign had declined to hire his consulting firm. On March 9, 2007, Judge Timothy Blakely granted a defense motion for summary judgment.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16262
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/163827.html
http://www.legaline.com/2006/01/minnesota-political-blogger-sued-for.html
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2006/01/blog_fight.asp
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1045172.html
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1045093.html
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/bigquestion/?p=593#comments
Previous denial of motion to dismiss: http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/olsonvmdemotiondenied6062006.pdf