In September 2008, New York University law professor Joseph Weiler was summoned to appear before a French Examining Judge in connection with a complaint of alleged criminal libel made by Dr. Karin Calvo-Goller, a senior lecturer at the Academic Centre of Law and Business in Israel.  Professor Weiler will appear for trial before the Paris Criminal Tribunal in June 2010.

Professor Weiler is the editor in chief of the European Journal of International Law and the affiliated book review sites, Global Law Books and European Law Books. In 2007, Global Law Books published a book review written by Professor Thomas Weigend, Director of the Cologne Institute of Foreign and International Criminal Law and Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cologne.  Professor Weigend reviewed Dr. Calvo-Goller's book, The Trial Proceedings of the International Criminal Court. ICTY and ICTR Precedents, and criticized it as an "exercise in rehashing the existing legal set-up" and "unproductive," among other things. 

In June 2007, Dr. Calvo-Goller wrote to Professor Weiler in his capacity as editor of Global Law Books, requesting that he remove Professor Weigend's review from the site. Her letter detailed several perceived factual inaccuracies in the review, claiming that it went "beyond the expression of an opinion, fair comment and criticism" and contained "false factual statements which the author of the review, a professor of criminal law, could not reasonably believe to be true." It also claimed that "[t]he review is an indirect insult to former ICTY and actual ICC officials, defense counsel of the ICTY and ICTR, who took the time to read and comment on previous drafts of the book."

In a response to Dr. Calvo-Goller, Professor Weiler declined to remove the review, expressing his sympathy for Dr. Calvo-Goller's hurt feelings, but also pointing out the unorthodox character of the request:

 I have seen all manner of reviews and from time to time received letters from unhappy authors. In these long years of experience I have never received a letter such as yours both in content and tone. It departs from what in my view are considered common conventions of academic discourse and academic publication.

. . . 

It is a very extreme request to ask for a critical review to be removed. I could imagine acceding to such a request only in most egregious circumstances of, say, bad faith, conflict of interest etc. In reviewing a complaint such as yours the task of the editor is not to engage in a de novo review, but to assess whether the review falls into one of those extreme categories of egregious unreasonableness.

After noting Professor Weigend's distinguished professional credentials and addressing each specific factual/substantive contention in turn, Professor Weiler concluded that removing the review was not justified:

My conclusion from this preliminary enquiry is that the heavy burden needed in my eyes to suppress a book review has not been met. In fact not even a prima facie case has been made. I found nothing to impugn the integrity or professionalism of the reviewer and, independently of whether or not I share his opinions or conclusions on your book, I must decline your request to suppress the book review by removing it from the site. 

Professor Weiler also explained that he would forward Dr. Calvo-Goller's comments to Professor Weigend and would consider a request by Professor Weigend, if any, to change the review. Professor Weiler also pointed out the comment feature on the website and suggested that it would be "perfectly in order for you to write a comment which, after editorial approval, could be posted on the website and seen by anyone who reads the review."

Professor Weigend declined to make any changes, Dr. Calvo-Goller posted no comment, and Professor Weiler stood by Professor Weigend's decision.

La Societe Metro Cash & Carry France sought a "bill of discovery" in Connecticut state court compelling Time Warner Cable to disclose the identity of an individual who allegedly sent an anonymous email to several of its regional directors accusing the company of deceptive and unethical business practices.  The request was based on an ex parte order of a French court requiring Time Warner to give up this information.  Time Warner notified its subscriber of the Connecticut action, and she intervened through counsel to oppose the bill.

The court granted the bill of discovery.  It applied an unusual standard with two requirements.  First, the plaintiff must show that what it seeks is necessary to mount a claim or defense in another action, and that it has no other way of obtaining the desired material.  Second, the plaintiff must "demonstrate by detailed facts that there is probable cause to bring a potential cause of action." It defined "probable cause" as "knowledge of facts sufficient to justify a reasonable man in the belief that he has reasonable grounds for presenting an action . . . Its existence or nonexistence is determined by the court on the facts found."

The court found that La Societe Metro had put forward enough evidence to establish probable cause that it had suffered damages as a result of the defamatory action of the anonymous emailer (potentially under French law), and that it was seeking information about her identity in good faith and not for any improper purpose.

Pharmaceutical company Immunomedics sued "moonshine_fr," a company employee who allegedly posted confidential internal documents on a Yahoo! Finance message board, and several John Does in New Jersey state court on claims of breach of contract, breach of duty of loyalty, and negligently revealing confidential and proprietary information.

Soon after filing its complaint, Immunomedics amended it to include claims of defamation and tortious interference with economic gain against a second anonymous poster, "bioledger." In the amended complaint, it also accused moonshine_fr of continuing to reveal company information online, including product shortages in Europe and the imminent firing of the company's "european [sic] manager."  While Immunomedics admitted that moonshine_fr's online allegations were true, it claimed that her posting of them was a violation of the company's confidentiality agreement and employment provisions.

Immunomedics subpoenaed Yahoo! to determine moonshine_fr's true identity.  Yahoo! notified moonshine_fr of the subpoena, and she moved to quash it. The trial court denied her motion, and she appealed.

The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling.  Using the test established in Dendrite International, Inc. v. John Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001), the court determined that Immunomedics had produced sufficient evidence to support its claim that moonshine_fr was an employee and was thus subject to the company's confidentiality agreement. Without extensive analysis, the court also concluded that Immunomedics's need to identify moonshine_fr in order to enforce its confidentiality agreement outweighed her right to speak anonymously.

It is not clear what happened after the appellate court's decision.