In January 2009, Thomas Garrett, a Virginia chicken farmer, publicist, and self-proclaimed "Hollywood insider," subpoenaed blogger Waldo Jaquith, who publishes cvillenews.com, a community news blog about Charlottesville, Virginia.  Garrett's lawyer served the subpoena in connection with his defamation lawsuit against The Hook, a weekly newspaper in Charlottesville that also publishes content on its website.  For details on the lawsuit, see our related database entry, Garrett v. The Hook.

Jaquith blogged about the Garrett-Hook lawsuit on December 23, 2008.  His post, entitled "The Hook Sued For Defamation," gave background on the lawsuit, quoted Hook editor Hawes Spencer's comments on it, and explained the elements of a defamation claim.  He also made some critical comments about Garrett: 

I can sympathize with The Hook in their continued coverage of him. In writing this blog entry this afternoon, it’s impossible to ignore the really sketchy aspects about this guy. Seriously, look at this magazine that he claims to have been on the cover of. This was obviously patched together in Microsoft Paint. It just screams “bad photoshop job.” (The fact that the magazine doesn’t seem to exist doesn’t help any.) Then there’s his PR firm’s website, hosted on Angelfire. Remember them? The free website hosting service from the mid-90s? Used primary to host webpages for middle school girls professing their love for boy bands? That’s where his company’s website is, at the address http://www.angelfire.com/film/tgj/. Though the site claims to be at garretticonspr.com, that domain is unregistered. In short, Garrett looks like a train wreck in slow motion, and I get that The Hook is just watching and waiting for his big finish.

As a result of this post, Garrett's attorney served Jaquith with a subpoena as part of discovery in his lawsuit against The Hook.  Among other things, the subpoena requests the names and/or IP addresses for everyone who posted a comment to Jaquith's December 23 post.  (As of January 29, there were 81 comments to the post.)  It also seeks IP addresses for every viewer of the post and all logs generated in connection with it. Beyond that, it asks Jaquith for every email or written communication he has sent or received relating to the post or Thomas Garrett, as well as any post, comment, or other writing Jacquith has made on other sites.

The return date on the subpoena is February 2, 2009.  Jaquith has indicated that hiring a lawyer to quash the subpoena is beyond his budget, but he plans to fight the subpoena, acting as his own attorney.

Update:

01/31/2009 - Waldo Jaquith filed a motion to quash the subpoena.

02/13/2009 - Garrett filed a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena.

03/05/2009 - Waldo Jacquith filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to compel.

Investment management firm Rocker Management LLC filed a defamation suit against 20 anonymous posters who criticized Rocker Management and employee Marc Cohodoes on Yahoo! message boards.  According to court filings, the posts accused Cohodoes of threatening stock analysts, lying about stock information, and being under investigation by the SEC.  Rocker Management filed suit against the posters in New Jersey federal court, bringing claims of business libel and unlawful restraint of trade.

Rocker Management filed a subpoena against Yahoo! in California federal court seeking the identities of the anonymous posters.  One of the posters, known as "harry3866," filed a motion to quash the subpoena on April 4, 2003.  Harry3866 argued that Rocker Management could not show probable cause that he had defamed the company and further that his First Amendment right to speak anonymously required that the subpoena be quashed.

On May 29, 2003, the California court granted harry3866's motion to quash the subpoena.  The court found that harry3866's statements probably were opinion, particularly given the critical climate in the Yahoo! message boards.  Further, the court reasoned that Rocker had not shown that the statements were sufficiently factual to qualify as libelous, particularly given that Rocker did not precisely delineate which statements it alleged to be libelous.  Thus, the court found that a reasonable viewer would not find any of the dispute statements to be defamatory.

The other Does filed motions to quash the subpoena shortly afterward.  According to the New Jersey and California courts' dockets for the case, Rocker Management voluntarily dismissed its complaint on July 15, 2003, before the court ruled on the motions.

Highfields Capital Management sued an anonymous user of a Yahoo! forum about the company Silicon Graphics, Inc. ("SGI"), of which Highfields was the largest shareholder.  Using the name "highfieldscapital," the user posted three messages allegedly suggesting that Highfields was profiting from the poor performance of SGI stock.  Highfields sued in Massachusetts federal court on claims of trademark infringement, defamation, trade libel, and breach of third-party contract.

After filing its complaint in Massachusetts, Highfields sought a subpoena from the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California in order to compel Yahoo! to turn over the identity of "highfieldscapital." Yahoo! notified the user of the subpoena, who moved to quash it.  The California court turned the motion over to a magistrate judge, who found that Highfields had failed to show sufficient cause for the subpoena to be issued.  The court agreed and quashed the subpoena.

Highfields appealed the decision, but voluntarily withdrew its appeal before the appeals court ruled on it.  Highfields also withdrew its case in the Massachusetts court due to its inability to serve the anonymous poster.

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 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 to quash the subpoena or alternatively for a protective order, arguing that pseudonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment.  The judge granted Doe 1's motion for a protective order in March 2007.  Using a summary judgment standard, 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 Herbert Bennett Conner as a defendant, in the belief that he might be Doe 3.  Conner, a citizen of Minnesota, removed the case to federal court and moved 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 his motion in July 2008.  The court also remanded the case back to state court because, without Conner as a defendant, the federal court no longer had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Independent videographer Tim Lewis refused to comply with a Lane County, Oregon, grand jury subpoena for video he filmed of a May 30, 2008, incident where police tasered Ian Van Ornum, a student protester.  Lewis argued that Oregon's reporter shield law, Or. Rev. Stat. § 44.520,  protects him from compelled disclosure of his newsgathering materials.

The grand jury planned to examine the video to determine whether Van Ornum, or any other people attending the anti-pesticide protest he was attending, should face criminal charges.  Lewis, who edited and posted the video to YouTube, said the tape contained very little information that would be useful to the grand jury, as he didn't begin to record events until after Van Ornum had been tasered. Nonetheless, he refused to surrender the tape because he "can't set a precedent by giving it to them," according to The Register-Guard.

Update:

7/15/2008 - After Lewis, with aid from the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, filed documents in court invoking the shield law, the District Attorney's office withdrew the subpoena, reports The Register Guard.