Fitch v. Doe [1]

In February 2004, Ronald Fitch filed a John Doe lawsuit in state court in Maine based on a fake e-mail that was circulated in his name. According to papers filed in the lawsuit, an anonymous person set up an e-mail account (fitchisland@hotmail.com [2]) using Fitch's name. On Christmas Eve 2003, several members of the board of directors of the gated community where Fitch lived received an e-mail from the account. The e-mail, entitled "Happy Holidays," contained a cartoon attachment that Fitch claimed was derogatory and was meant to depict him and his wife.

Fitch sued, alleging that the person who sent the email had misappropriated his identity, violated his privacy, portrayed him in a false light, inflicted emotional distress, and committed fraud. Fitch filed a motion to compel disclosure of information about the user of the email account from Time Warner Cable, who allegedly provided Internet access to the user. Time Warner refused to release any information without a court order referencing 47 U.S.C. § 551 [3], a provision in the Cable Communications Policy Act that regulates cable companies' use of subscriber information. Counsel for the anonymous defendant appeared in the action and opposed the disclosure motion.

The trial court ordered disclosure, finding that the anonymous defendant had consented to disclosure in his user agreement. The anonymous defendant appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, which affirmed the lower court's decision, but based on different reasoning. The court held that, regardless of consent, section 551(c) and (h) of the Cable Communications Policy Act [3] authorized disclosure of subscriber information pursuant to a court order so long as the cable provider notified the subscriber in advance.

Public Citizen Litigation Group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Maine Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus curiae brief before the Supreme Judicial Court, opposing disclosure based on First Amendment protections for anonymous speech. Counsel for the anonymous defendant also made the First Amendment argument on appeal. The court rejected this argument, however, because the anonymous defendant had not raised it before the trial court.

The record is unclear as to whether and how the lawsuit was resolved following disclosure of the anonymous defendant's identity.