Digital Broadband Networks and its president Patrick Lim sued seven pseudonymous internet posters in New Jersey state court for defamation over statements on electronic bulletin boards dedicated to Digital Broadband on Ragingbull.com and on general messages boards on Yahoo. The company alleged that the purpose of the postings was to drive its stock price down in order to reap profits through short selling.

Digital Broadband filed a motion for permission to engage in pre-litigation discovery to uncover the identities of the anonymous posters.  In a March 2004 hearing, the trial court granted the motion, allowing the company to subpoena Yahoo! and Lycos, the operator of the Raging Bull forum.  

One of the posters, "pseeker," filed a motion for permission to take an immediate appeal to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in order to prevent the disclosure of his/her identity. Public Citizen's Litigation Group filed a brief supporting pseeker's right to appeal. The record is not clear about the result of this motion or what, if anything, happened after the appeal. 

On December 22, 2008, Deborah Dolen, author of several "Do It Yourself" craft books, sued Julie Ryals and an unknown poster, listed on the complaint as "Jane Doe Libel Cyberstalker," for negative statements about Dolen that appeared on BustedScammers.com.  Dolen, acting pro se, alleged internet fraud, cyberstalking, libel, defamation, and disparagement. She requested a temporary injunction shutting down Ryals' servers hosting The Design Shoppe.com and BustedScammers.com, as well as $100,000 for each "violation."

On January, 21, 2009, Dolen filed an amended complaint which added Mary Joanne Kidd, Jeffery Kidd, and Mary Harvey as defendants alleging that Mary Kidd was the co-owner of BustedScammers.com and that Jeff Kidd and Harvey committed libel through chat room activity.  Dolen also added counts of trade libel and copyright infringement.  

On February 18, 2009, Ryals filed an answer and counterclaims as well as a motion for summary judgment.  Ryals' answer denied that she had any ownership interest in BustedScammers.com, and her counterclaims alleged that Dolen defamed and slandered her on Topix.com.  Ryals' requested an injunction preventing Dolen from contacting her or posting information about her.  Ryals also alleges that Dolen is cybersquatting on JulieRyals.com and requests transfer of the domain name to her. The Kidds and Harvey submitted substantially similar answers, counterclaims, and motions for summary judgment.  

On February 27, 2009, the court determined Dolen's current claims may be adversely affected by her bankruptcy matter, and the court stayed the case until bankruptcy proceedings concluded.  The court lifted the stay and reinstated the defendants' claims against Dolen in September 2009.

On September 17, 2009, Kent Rowald, the defendants' lawyer, filed a third-party complaint against Dolen, claiming that Dolen had defamed him. The court severed Rowald's complaint from the case, and ordered both parties to remove from the Internet all critical comments each made about the other.

In October 2009, the court sua sponte ordered the case transferred to the Middle District of Florida.

On June 17, 2010, Dolen filed a second amended complaint, wherein she made claims of trademark infringement, defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Ryals. Dolen's new complaint made no claims against Mary Kidd, Jeffery Kidd, or Mary Harvey. Both Ryals and the Kidds filed answers and counterclaims. The Kidds also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, based on their absence from the second amended complaint.

On October 19, 2010, Dolen moved to be allowed to file a third amended complaint.

On February 24, 2011, the court granted the Kidds' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Dolen's claims against them with prejudice.  The court also dismissed the counterclaims the Kidds made in their response to Dolen's second amended complaint.  Further, the court denied Dolen's motion to file a third amended complaint.

Update:

April 18, 2011: A jury trial on the remaining claims in the case begins.

April 22, 2011: The court grants cross-motions for judgment as a matter of law, finding that Dolen had failed to present evidence legally sufficient to sustain her claims against Ryals, and that Ryals had failed to present evidence legally sufficient to sustain her counterclaim against Dolen.

April 25, 2011: The court enters judgment in favor of Ryals on Dolen's claims, and in favor of Dolen on Ryals's counterclaim.

May 5, 2011: The defendants move for an award of attorneys' fees, seeking $218,189.10 in attorney's fees and litigation costs.

Feburary 10, 2012: A magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation that the defendants be awarded $6,300 in attorney's fees, identifying twelve frivolous motions filed by the plaintiff. The magistrate rejects the defendants' argument for further fees and costs.

March 22, 2012: The court adopts the magistrate's report and recommendation, and orders the entry of judgment in favor of the defendants for 6,300.

March 23, 2012: Judgment enters consistent with the March 22 order.

On September 15, 2008, Dan Duran, CEO of the U.S. Soybean Export Council, sued two former Council employees and several anonymous Internet users over emails that allegedly defamed him.  Christopher Andrew, one of the former employees, allegedly sent several emails containing defamatory statements about Duran and manufactured a photo of Duran "posing in a friendly manner with Kim Jong-Il, a dictator of an enemy country."

Duran's original complaint sought a permanent injunction against the defendants preventing them from "[p]ublishing and re-publishing by any means, including electronic mail, any further defamatory, scandalous, desultory, false statements concerning Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s personal life, and Plaintiff’s professional activities."  Duran also sought damages in excess of $75,000.

On October 6, 2008, Andrew made a motion to dismiss the complaint arguing that Duran had not properly filed service of process and failed to state a valid claim.  The court found that Duran had properly stated claims for defamation and injurious falsehood and that Andrew's statements were not opinion protected by the First Amendment.  The court did find that the doctored photos "clearly represent[ed] imaginative expression, rather than assertions of objective fact" and dismissed the claims related to its publication.  

In mid April 2009, Duran made a motion to dismiss the Doe defendants and Tom Nishio.

Update:

5/20/2009 - Jury trial scheduled to begin April 5, 2010. 

Too Much Media, LLC ("TMM"), a software company that services the online adult entertainment business, sued Washington-based blogger Shellee Hale in New Jersey state court in June 2008, after she posted comments about a security breach in TMM's software product on Oprano.com, an online forum for those in the online adult entertainment industry.  The complaint includes claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and trade libel. 

In March 2009, Hale moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that counsel for TMM had withdrawn all claims but "slander per se" in a January hearing, and that slander only applies to oral statements.  TMM opposed the motion, arguing that it had not limited its claim to slander in the January hearing, and that it can recover for libel without showing proof of pecuniary loss. 

Also in March 2009, Hale filed a separate motion asking the court to rule that New Jersey's journalist shield law protected her from having to testify about the identity of her confidential sources in her upcoming deposition. In a certification accompanying the motion, Hale testified that she reports on Internet security issues through several blogs (www.camandago.com; www.shelleehale.net/blog; and www.shelleeland.com), as well as on electronic bulletin boards and websites, and that she has developed relationships with confidential sources as part of her reporting and investigative processes.  TMM opposed the motion, arguing that Hale is not a "newsperson" within the meaning of the shield law.

The court held hearings on these motions on April 17 and April 24, 2009 and reserved decision for a later date.

UPDATE:

7/02/2009- The court ruled that Hale's conduct was not protected by shield laws and that the defamation suit against her may continue. 

07/22/2009 - Hale filed a motion for reconsideration. 

09/2009 - Hale appealed the trial court's ruling.

04/22/10 - The appeals court ruled that Hale was not entitled to protection under New Jersey's shield law because she was not working as a journalist or a reporter when she posted comments about Too Much Media LLC, according to NJ.com.

06/7/2011 - The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.  It held that New Jersey's shield law requires a party attempting to invoke the law to establish (1) a connection to news media; (2) a purpose to gather, procure, transmit, compile, edit, or disseminate news; and (3), that the materials sought were obtained in the course of pursuing professional newsgathering activities.  The Court noted that "news media" were defined to include both “newspapers, magazines, press associations, news agencies, wire services, radio, [and] television” and “other similar . . . means of disseminating news to the general public."  While the Court recognized that electronic communication could, in certain circumstances, be "similar" to the traditional media listed in the statute, it held that the online message board used by Hale was more a forum for conversation than a medium for dissemination of news and therefore did not satisfy the statute.

In the course of an ongoing lawsuit, Orix Capital Markets, LLC filed a counterclaim against Super Future Equities, Inc., Schumann Rafizadeh, Cyrus Rafizadeh, Houman Thomas Arjmandi, and Keon Michael Arjmandi.  The counterclaim alleged that the defendants set up a website -- www.predatorix.com -- that published false and defamatory statements about Orix.  For example, Orix claimed that the website accused the company of committing tax fraud and being under federal investigation for violating racketeering laws.  Later, Orix filed an amended counterclaim to add a copyright infringement claim arising from Predatorix's re-posting of a page from the Orix website.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which, in March 2008, the court granted in part and denied in part.  The court dismissed Orix's claims for business disparagement, tortious interference, and copyright infringement (notably, the court found that Predatorix's use of the Orix page was fair use), but found that the defamation claim was sufficient to go to the jury.

In February 2009, after a two-week trial, the jury awarded Orix $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages, split between the defendants, except Keon Michael Arjmandi, who was not found liable.  After the verdict, the parties settled the case on undisclosed terms.  After the settlement, the Rafizadehs published an apology on Predatorix, acknowledging that the postings were incorrect.

On May 30, 2008, John Grogan filed a lawsuit in California state against Ralph Hilliard, John Trimarco, Joseph Paolella, Jack Trimarco & Associates Polygraph/Investigations, Inc., Wordnet Solution, Inc., and several John Does alleging defamation, invasion of privacy (false light), and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  

In his complaint, Grogan alleged that Paolella wrote a letter to Trimarco which contained false, malicious, and libelous statements.  Grogan also alleged that Trimarco called into a radio show that Grogan was a guest on and made several false and defamatory statements.  Finally, Grogan alleged that Hilliard created two websites, PolygraphPlace.com and TheTruthAboutGrogan.org, and used them to repeat the statements Trimarco made during the radio show, to make additional false and defamatory statements, and to link to other defamatory content.

In June and August 2008 respectively, Paolella and Trimarco filed motions to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP law (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).  Trimarco argued that Grogan qualified as a public figure and that the statements involved were statements of opinion.  In August, Hilliard and Wordnet Solutions filed an answer, asserting several affirmative defenses.

In October 2008, the court issued a tentative ruling on Trimarco's motion to strike, finding that Grogan had produced evidence sufficient to avoid dismissal under the anti-SLAPP law. 

The trial is currently scheduled for August 2009.

UPDATE: 

On or before 5/28/2009, the case settled, according to AntiPolygraph.org and TruthAboutGrogan.org

"The Parties to the Lawsuit filed by Mr. Grogan against Ralph Hilliard and others as entitled Grogan vs. Paollela et. al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.: BC391778 ("Lawsuit") has been settled by and between Mr. Grogan, Mr. Hilliard and Mr. Hilliard's Company, Wordnet Solutions, Inc. for an undisclosed amount and that no party in any way admits liability or wrongdoing of any sort and the parties have agreed to settle to avoid the cost and inconvenience of litigation and such settlement shall not constitute an admission of liability by any party".

Cherie Davis, mother of 2006 gold medal winner Shani Davis, the first African American speed skater to make the U.S. Olympic team, sued Google, Inc. in Illinois state court, seeking an injunction requiring the company to take down a blog post written by deceased sports blogger Sean Healy.

Healy published the disputed post in 2006 on his blog, Unknown Column, which is hosted on Google's Blogger service.  In the post, Healy repeated the claim, reported at the time by some mainstream media outlets, including The Associated Press and Chicago Tribune, that Cherie Davis had accused the U.S. Speedskating Federation of racism. (These reports are no longer available online, but The Age, an Australian news outlet, is still carrying a similar story.)  Healy subsequently died of cancer in 2007.  

In her complaint, Davis alleges that Healy's post was false and defamatory, that she cannot bring a lawsuit for damages against Healy because of his death and apparent lack of a probate estate, and that Google "would not be prejudiced by an order enjoining it from continuing to post Healy's statement on Healy's blog, as [Google] has no interest, economic or otherwise, in continuing to post Healy's statement."  Davis seeks an injunction requiring Google to take down Healy's post, as well as payment of legal expenses.