Nam Tai Electronics, Inc., a Hong Kong-based electronics company, subpoenaed Yahoo! Inc. in connection with a lawsuit against 51 "John Doe" defendants alleging libel, trade libel, and violations of California's unfair business practices statute.  The lawsuit revolved around negative comments about Nam Tai posted to a Yahoo! message board pertaining to Nam Tai. After filing the complaint, Nam Tai obtained a subpoena in California directing Yahoo! to disclose its subscriber data (IP address) for "scovey2," one of the anonymous forum posters.

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.

In September 2008, an Oregon state judge ruled that Oregon's media shield law, found at Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 44.510 to 44.540, protected the identity of anonymous commenters who posted allegedly defamatory statements on The Portland Mercury and Willamette Week websites.

According to the Portland Mercury, staff writer Amy Ruiz wrote a post in January 2008 about Portland mayoral candidate Sho Dozono.  In the comments section, a site user going by "Ronald" posted negative comments about Dozono's ties to a local businessman, Terry Beard.  The same commenter allegedly posted similar statements on the Willamette Week site. Proceeding anonymously, Beard filed a lawsuit against "Ronald" and other anonymous commenters and served a subpoena on The Portland Mercury and Williamette Week, seeking documents and records identifying them. When the two newspapers failed to produce responsive documents, Beard moved to compel them to produce documents identifying the anonymous commenters. The two newspapers teamed up to oppose the discovery request and won. 

Interestingly, Judge James E. Redman of Clackamas County Court did not treat the anonymous commenters as confidential sources.  Section 44.520(a) of the Oregon Revised Statutes protects from disclosure "[t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public." Instead, the court relied on section 44.520(b), which protects "[a]ny unpublished information obtained or prepared by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public."  Section 44.510(1) defines "information" as including "any written, oral, pictorial or electronically recorded news or other data." The court characterized "Ronald's" IP address as data.

On the question of whether the newspapers obtained this data in the course of newsgathering, Judge Redman drew a line based on the relevance of the blog comment to the post it's attached to:

If the comment had been totally unrelated to the blog post, then the argument could be made that the Portland Mercury did not receive it in the "course of gathering, receiving, or processing information for any medium of communication to the public." (source)

Concluding that the IP address fit within the shield law's "broad statutory language," the court denied Beard's motion to compel. Presumably, Beard will not be able to pursue the underlying lawsuit without the identity of the anonymous commenters.

In July 2008,  Michigan venture capital firm EDF Ventures sued an anonymous commenter to The Funded, a website that enables entrepreneurs to rate venture capitalists anonymously.  The lawsuit, which alleges defamation, revolves around a post warning readers to avoid EDF Ventures "unless you are desperate."

In August 2008, EDF Ventures subpoenaed Adeo Ressi, operator of The Funded, seeking the identity of the anonymous poster. Ressi complied with the subpoena, but indicated that the records in his possession "showed nothing material about the identity" of the anonymous poster.  This is likely because The Funded has adopted affirmative measures to protect the anonymity of site users.

The disputed comment is still online.   

Jack Thompson, a former Florida attorney, recently disbarred, filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against JAABlog publisher and attorney William Gelin. Thompson is seeking to have Gelin sanctioned by the Florida Bar (potential punishments range from reprimand to disbarment) because his JAABlog site "traffics in rumors, gossip, and scandal about members of the legal community, including primarily judges." The site allows unmoderated, anonymous posting of blog comments. The complaint centers on the anonymous comments. Thompson's allegations have caused the Florida Bar to draft a letter of inquiry to Gelin on December 5, 2008. Thus, in accordance with Florida Bar rules, a new file was opened and generated by virtue of Thompson's latest complaint.

(Portion above submitted by Guest.)

Real estate developer and business owner Zebulon Brodie subpoenaed Independent Newspapers, Inc. ("INI") seeking the identity of three anonymous commenters to a community forum hosted by INI.  The subpoena issued in connection with a defamation lawsuit Brodie filed against INI and John Doe defendants in Maryland state court. 

According to a brief filed on appeal, the lawsuit revolves around statements criticizing Brodie for selling his historic, pre-Civil War home to another developer (the home subsequently burned down) and accusing him of maintaining a dirty Dunkin' Donuts establishment and letting trash "waft" into a nearby waterway.  Appellant's Brief, at 4-6.  INI removed the disputed comments after Brodie complained to it, but Brodie sued nonetheless.

INI moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) immunized it from liability for comments posted by third parties.  At the same time, Brodie served a subpoena demanding that INI identify the Doe defendants "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here."  INI moved to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, arguing that Brodie had failed to make the legal and evidentiary showing necessary to overcome First Amendment protection for anonymous speech.  The trial court dismissed the lawsuit against INI based on CDA 230, but ordered INI to provide identifying information for the anonymous commenters.

INI filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court granted.  On reconsideration, the court determined that the statements about the sale and burning of Brodie's home were not defamatory statements "of and concerning" Brodie, and thus could not support a claim for defamation or a subpoena seeking the identity of those posters.  The court determined, however, that the statements relating to his Dunkin' Donuts establishment could support a claim for defamation, and it ordered the unmasking of the individuals who made those statements. 

INI then requested the specific allegations of defamation related to the food-service establishment, and Brodie's counsel responded with a letter and a copy of the relevant forum threads indicating that the posters responsible for the statements about the Dunkin' Donuts were "RockyRacoon MD" and "Suze," who were not named as defendants in the complaint.  Brodie served a new subpoena seeking to identify these two posters as well as "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here," who had been protected by the court's earlier decision on reconsideration because their statements only related to the burning of the house.  INI moved to quash this second subpoena, but the court denied the motion and ordered INI to comply.  

INI appealed.  The Maryland Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case on December 8, 2008.

Update:

2/27/2009: The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the district court and quashed the subpoena.  It held that disclosure of the posters' identities would be improper because Brodie did not have a valid cause of action for defamation against any of them.  Specifically, the court held that Brodie could not obtain the identities of "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here" because the trial court had already ruled that their statements were not "of and concerning" him.  The court held that Brodie had no valid cause of action against "RockyRacoonMD" and "Suze" because the statute of limitations barred his any claim he might have had against them -- he had not named them in his original complaint nor timely moved to amend his complaint to include them. 

Pharmaceutical company Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. sued several named and anonymous Internet users in Arizone state court over negative posts about the company on the Yahoo! Finance and Silicon Investor message boards.  Although the court filings for the case are not available, filings in related actions state that Matrixx brought claims of defamation, trade libel, and interference with contractual relations and business expectancies.  See Matrixx Initiatives v. Doe, 138 Cal.App.4th 872, 875 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).  Matrixx alleged that it suffered "unusual" fluctuations in its stock as a result of the statements, including "relatively large-volume selling near the close of the market."  Id.

In an attempt to discern the identities of the anonymous users, Matrixx filed subpoenas against numerous individuals and organizations in other courts.  Two of these subpoenas are addressed in CMLP threat entries Matrixx Intiatives v. Barbary Coast Capital and Matrixx Initiatives v. Mulligan.  Matrixx also appears to have sought discovery in the Arizona court from Qwest Communications International Inc., but the details are not clear from the available record. 

According to the Arizona docket for the case, Matrixx voluntarily withdrew the case but reserved leave to refile at a later date.  The court granted the dismissal without prejudice on January 31, 2007.  As of December 04, 2008, Matrixx does not appear to have refiled the case.

On December 1, 2008, the blog-hosting service Blogger removed the blog titled "Jeffrey Denner's ineffective assistance of counsel" after Jeffrey Denner delivered to it a court order prohibiting Derrick Gillenwater from using the words "Jeffrey" or "Denner" or "Jeffrey Denner" in any blog postings. Blogger notified the anonymous operator of the blog, who goes by the moniker "Boston Bob."  On December 2, Boston Bob replied as follows: 

The problem is, I'm not Derrick Gillenwater, nor do I operate under his
authority.

I am an independent anonymous person.

Please repost my blog immediately.

Thank you.

Blogger restored the blog and indicated that it would notify Mr. Denner.

Boston Bob created the blog in mid-October 2008, after apparently meeting Derrick Gillenwater and discussing Gillenwater's malpractice lawsuit against Jeffrey Denner and Kevin Barron, two Boston lawyers. Gillenwater himself is a blogger, and at the time he also operated a blog dedicated to criticizing Jeffrey Denner and discussing the lawsuit at http://jeffreydenner.blogspot.com.

At around the same time that Boston Bob started his blog, Denner and Barron obtained a restraining order and then a preliminary injunction from a Massachusetts state court prohibiting Gillenwater from blogging about Denner and from filing motions or pleadings without prior permission of the court.  For details, see our database entry, Denner v. Gillenwater.

Boston Bob published only three posts before Blogger temporarily removed the blog, all of which related to Gillenwater's lawsuit and alleged malpractice on the part of Denner and Barron. Since the takedown, Boston Bob has published a series of posts criticizing the court's gag order as unconstitutional.