Dugas v. Robbins [1]

Robbins wrote a blog post [2] that criticized a group of abutters for their actions in delaying the implementation of a dredging project through their appeals and interventions in numerous fora. The lead abutter, Joe Dugas, and his lawyer, Paul Revere, sued [3] Robbins for defamation, alleging that his criticism of them for delaying the dredging was false and defamatory.

Robbins has filed a special motion to dismiss [4] under the MA anti-SLAPP law [5]. The special motion is scheduled for hearing on September 16, 2008.

(Portion above submitted by blogger's counsel Peter Morin.)

Added by CMLP Staff: 

The dispute arose over a March 11 post by Robbins entitled Barnstable Harbor: Filling in and falling in [2], in which he criticized a number of individuals, including Joseph Dugas and his lawyer Paul Revere III, who had challenged orders issued by the Town of Barnstable Conservation Commission and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection that authorized dredging in Barnstable Harbor. 

Robbins' original post [2] -- which has since been edited  -- lamented the poor condition of Barnstable Harbor and its bulkhead, asserting that much of the blame for the town's failure to fix the problems was due to legal challenges filed by local residents. Robbins wrote:

In my opinion this, NIMBY, frivolous, malicious action is doing nothing but stalling the inevitable and costing us the taxpayers unnecessary time and money. . . . So when you run aground this summer, or bend that prop trying to get in or out of Barnstable Harbor at low tide, these are the people who are costing you . . . ." 

Robbins went on to name the people he claimed had challenged and thereby delayed the dredging, including Dugas and his lawyer, who Robbins described as "Paul (the dredge isn't coming) Revere III."

On July 7, 2008, Dugas and Revere filed a defamation lawsuit against Robbins and "John Doe," an anonymous commenter on the site who posted under the pseudonym "Noggin."  Plaintiffs' complaint [3] alleges that the following statements by Robbins were false and defamatory:

• A reference to Dugas as “the infamous sh*t stirring Joe Dugas."
• A description of Revere as “Paul ‘the dredge isn’t coming’ Revere.”
• The assertion that the "actions of Dugas and others represented by Revere with regard to the 'litigation' were malicious and not brought in good faith."
• The claim that the reason the harbor wasn’t being dredged was because of the plaintiffs’ legal challenges.

Dugas and Revere also alleged in their complaint that a pseudonymous user named "Noggin" posted the following defamatory comments on Robbins' blog:

• "In the Town of Barnstable, 'if you don't genuflect and pay off Joe Dugas, you may as well forget whatever you want to do."
• "There are plenty of shysters like Revere to climb aboard . . ."

Update:

9/8/2008 - Robbins filed an emergency motion for leave to file supplemental affidavits [6], addressing, among other things, his personal interest in the navigability of the harbor.

9/16/2008 - The court held a hearing.  The judge allowed both parties to take depositions of the other side prior to the upcoming hearing on Robbins's special motion to dismiss on November 13th.  According to Peter Morin, the anti-SLAPP argument will come down to the question: "Does an individual blogger's commentary on a matter of personal interest qualify as petitioning activity when the blogger is also a paid correspondent of the website-host?"

11/6/2008 - According to Defendant's counsel, the court has ordered that depositions of both plaintiffs and the defendant will take place prior to a hearing on the special motion to dismiss scheduled for November 13th.

11/7/08 -  Citizen Media Law Project, Globe Newspaper Company, Media Bloggers Association, New England Press Association, and Online News Association filed a motion [7] for leave to file an amici curiae brief [8] in suppport of application of the Masschusetts anti-SLAPP law.

11/13/08 - Court heard oral argument on Defendant's special motion to dismiss; court denied motion for leave to file amici curiae brief.

11/17/08 - Court denied [9] defendant's special motion to dismiss.

1/5/11 - Robbins moved that the Court reconsider its special motion to dismiss [10] due to newly discovered evidence and changes of law.