Reunion Industries v. Doe [1]

Reunion Industries sued three pseudonymous posters on a Yahoo! finance bulletin board for trade libel after they criticized the company and claimed it was in dire financial straits.

After filing its complaint [2] in Pennsylvania state court in April 2006, Reunion subpoenaed Yahoo! to uncover the identities of the three John Does. Yahoo! identified AOL as the Internet provider for Doe 1.  Reunion then subpoenaed  AOL for information about Doe 1.  After being notified by AOL, Doe 1 moved [3] to quash the subpoena or alternatively for a protective order, arguing that pseudonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment.  The judge granted [4] Doe 1's motion for a protective order in March 2007.  Using a summary judgment standard [5], the court ruled that Reunion could not uncover the identity of the Does until it presented a "prima facie" case of trade libel. The court's ruling barred Reunion from obtaining information relating to Doe 1 only.

In February 2008, Reunion added [6] Herbert Bennett Conner as a defendant, in the belief that he might be Doe 3.  Conner, a citizen of Minnesota, removed [7] the case to federal court and moved [8] to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  Conner argued that Reunion's trade libel claim was not brought against him within the one-year statute of limitations, and that Reunion had failed to make a good faith effort to serve him before the statute of limitations expired.  Conner added that, even if the complaint had been timely, Reunion had failed to show that it had suffered financial injury, a necessary element of trade libel.  

The court agreed that Reunion had failed to make a good faith effort to serve Conner in a timely fashion and granted [9] his motion in July 2008.  The court also remanded [10] the case back to state court because, without Conner as a defendant, the federal court no longer had subject-matter jurisdiction.