Usha Rajagopal, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, sued ten John Does for defamation and various business torts in Virginia state court.  The claims stem from reviews of Rajagopal posted by the defendants on Google.com. Rajagopal also subpoenaed Google to determine the identities of five of the Does.

One of the Does, Cannoli38, moved to quash the subpoena.  He argued that because he and the other Does have a First Amendment right to speak anonymously, Rajagopal must make a five-part showing that satisfies the Dendrite standard to identify the Does.  Cannoli38 argued that Rajagopal did not give the Does noticed as required by Dendrite, nor did she provide any evidence supporting her claims against the Does.

Cannoli38 alleged that the Does' reviews consisted solely of opinion statements, which are protected by the First Amendment, and restatements of an article from SFWeekly, a San Francisco news site, that posted a story about Rajagopal's advertising practices and allegations brought against her by the California Medical Board.  Cannoli38 argued that the balance of the equities weighed against Rajagopal.

Cannoli38 also called upon Rajagopal and her attorney to be sanctioned, as he argued the lawsuit is meritless, has no ties to Virginia, and was meant to be an end run around California's anti-SLAPP law, which would likely prevent Rajagopal from pursuing the case in her home state.

The letter sent from Wrink a Bull Kennels is a Cease and Desist order for what she calls malicious and comments that are slander.All of the comments made on the BLOG and to the Department are accurate and supported by medical documentation.

Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company associated with Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Bill Hyatt, a New York blogger.  Righthaven alleged that Hyatt copied an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal without permission and posted it on his website, 1ce.org.

After Hyatt did not respond to Righthaven's lawsuit, on February 10, 2011, Righthaven filed a motion for default judgment and demanded it be awarded attorney fees, $150,000 in statutory damages, and an order that 1ce.org be transferred from Hyatt to Righthaven.

Update: 

2/23/2011 - The Media Bloggers Association ("MBA") moved to file an amicus brief with the court.  In the brief, the MBA argued that Righthaven's claim to ownership of the copyright in the article in question is dubious, as the copyright assignment appears to be invalid.  The MBA also argued that Righthaven should not be awarded any more than nominal damages at most, as it "is not a content producer trying to preserve ts relevant market from the unceasing raids of content pirates, but a dedicated litigation house that acquires rights from other entities solely to sue essentially defenseless 'infringers' for their supposed infringement."  And the MBA argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to order the transfer of 1ce.org to Righthaven, as such an award is only an appropriate remedy in cybersquatting cases, which this is not.

4/14/2011 - The court granted the MBA's motion to file an amicus brief.

4/14/2011 - The MBA files the amicus brief.

4/19/2011 - The MBA files  a supplement to their amicus brief containing a "Strategic Alliance Agreement" (SAA) between Righthaven and Stephens Media, alleging that the SAA is the document that Righthaven relies upon for its right to sue for violations of Stephens Media copyrights.

4/19/2011 - Plaintiff Righthaven files a motion to strike the supplement.

4/28/2011 - Plaintiff Righthaven and the MBA agree to a stipulation for an extension of time to respond the MBA amicus brief. The stipulation also allows the MBA to file the SAA.

5/05/2011 - The court issues an order approving the stipulation filed on 4/28/2011.

5/06/2011 - The MBA withdraws its supplement filed 4/19/2011, stating that the stipulation filed 4/28/2011 allowing them to file the SAA renders the supplement unnecessary.

5/10/2011 - Righthaven files a response brief to the MBA's amicus brief in which it characterizes the MBA brief as a late attack on its business model, stating that the MBA’s filing is untimely after the Defendant’s default. Furthermore, Righthaven argues that even if the MBA was not too late, it lacked standing as a third party not affected by the contract. Finally, Righthaven states that the record and the SAA between Righthaven and Stephens Media shows that all rights of the copyright were sold to Righthaven, not just the right to sue as the amicus brief alleges.  In support of this statement, Righthaven submits the declarations of its CEO, Steven A. Gibson, and the General Counsel of Stephens Media, Mark A. Hinueber, both of whom rely upon a “Clarification and Amendment to the Strategic Alliance Agreement” effective January 18, 2010, which is attached to the declarations.

5/16/2011 - The MBA files a reply brief to Righthaven's response, arguing that even in light of the “Clarification,” the SAA is still nothing more than an attempted transfer of a bare right to sue for copyright infringement without a true transfer of exclusive copyright rights as required by the Copyright Act. Specifically, the MBA cites to the fact that Stephens Media still retains a right of reversion of the copyright under the Clarification and because Righthaven must give thirty days notice to Stephens Media for any use of the copyright other than litigation.  Thus, the MBA argues, Stephens Media never assigned its copyrights fully to Righthaven.

Virginia Psychologist Ronald S. Federici is suing multiple parties from multiple states (Florida, New Jersey, Nebraska, Colorado) for defamation, conspiracy, and tortious interference. Defendants are authors of blogs, forum comments, and websites that were critical of his writings and practices. Plaintiff has also named John Does 1-10, alleging conspiracy with unidentified anonymous bloggers and others.
Public documents on this case are available via Pacer.

Update:

3/28/11 -  The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court also granted the motion of defendants Pignotti and Mercer to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

5/31/11 - After the claims against the named defendants were dismissed, Federici moved to dismiss without prejudice the claims against the John Doe defendants.

6/1/11 - The court granted Federici's motion to dismiss the remaining claims against the John Does. 

Glenn Reit, a Manhattan dentist, sued Yelp! and John Doe (Michael S.) for defamation and Yelp! for deceptive acts and practices under New York’s General Business Law § 349 and § 350.  

According to his complaint, as of May 2009, Dr. Reit's Yelp page had 11 reviews: 10 favorable and 1 negative review from a user named "Michael S."  Dr. Reit alleges the Michael S. posting was defamatory because it included "statements that his office is 'small,' 'old' and 'smelly,' and 'the equipment is old and dirty.'  Dr. Reit alleges that Michael S.'s post caused him to lose 5-11 calls per day.  

When Dr. Reit complained to Yelp about the review, he claims that Yelp removed all of the positive reviews and kept only Michael S.'s post. Eventually, that post was removed too. Dr. Reit argues that Yelp removed the positive posts as part of Yelp's alleged scheme to get business owners to pay for advertising.

In addition to monetary damages, Dr. Reit sought an order requiring Yelp to delete all references to him and his dental practice from Yelp.com. The court initial granted a temporary restraining order, but ultimately dismissed the claims against Yelp based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The defamation claim against Michael S. remains pending.  

Update:

10/25/2010 - Defendant Michael S. filed a Petition to Quash Out-of-State Sub Duces Tecum and Request for Sanctions in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco

11/22/2010 - Plaintiff filed Opposition to the Petition and Request for Sanctions

The nature of the threat is a secret, known only to judge A. Howard Matz and Agent Smith.The complaint was on July 9, 2010. The site was removed on or about October 7, 2010.

On August 10, 2010, Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company associated with Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the website Democratic Underground ("DU") and its owner, David Allen. 

As illustrated by an exhibit to the Complaint, a DU user going by the screen name "pampango" posted the first four paragraphs of a Review-Journal article entitled "Tea Party power fuels Angle" in the website's forums on May 13, 2010, with a link back to the remainder of the 34-paragraph article on the Review-Journal website. The Complaint seeks statutory damages for willful infringement, transfer of the democraticunderground.com domain name, and costs and attorneys' fees.

On September 27, 2010, attorneys for DU, including attorneys with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed an Answer and Counterclaims against Righthaven, seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.  The counterclaims also named Stephens Media.

Update:

11/15/2010 - Righthaven moved to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice its complaint against DU.  Righthaven said that its decision was based on an intervening fair use ruling in Righthaven LLC v. Realty One Group, Inc., and argued that it would be unfair to force Righthaven to continue to litigate its present case.

11/17/2010 - Stephens Media moved to dismiss or strike DU's counterclaims against it.  Stephens Media argued that no controversy existed between it and DU, and that DU failed to state a claim against Stephens Media.  Stephens Media also partially joined Righthaven's motion to voluntarily dismiss its complaint.

12/7/2010 - DU filed briefs in opposition to both Righthaven's motion for voluntary dismissal and Stephens Media's motion to dismiss.  DU argued that Righthaven's complaint was meritless from the start, and that DU was entitled to seek attorneys fees even if Righthaven dropped the complaint.  DU also argued that its counterclaims against Righthaven did not depend on Righthaven's complaint, and thus still merited litigating.  Regarding the Stephens Media motion, DU argued that its counterclaim against Stephens Media did set out a controversy between the parties, and that the dismissal of Righthaven's complaint had no bearing upon that controversy.

3/4/2011 - DU filed a motion to for leave to file a supplemental memo addressing new evidence relating to various pending motions.  DU also moved to seal its motion as the evidence contained documents marked "Confidential Attorneys’ Eyes Only" by Stephens Media.  DU said it would seal the documents until it could discuss with opposing counsel which portions should be made publicly available.

3/29/2011 - DU moved to unseal the documents.  DU stated that Stephens Media and Righthaven refused to lift its designation of  "Confidential Attorneys’ Eyes Only" and did not reach a stipulated resolution with DU.  DU added that Stephens Media and Righthaven failed to file any justification with the court for keeping the documents sealed.  Thus, DU argued, they failed to meet their burden of showing why the documents should remain sealed, and so the documents should be made public.

4/11/2011 - The court granted DU's motion to unseal the documents.  The documents were revealed to include a "Strategic Alliance Agreement" between Stephens Media and Righthaven, describing the terms of copyright assignments for the purposes of litigation against infringers.  The agreement states among other things that Righthaven has no right to exploit the copyrights at issue, other than via recovery from lawsuits, and that Stephens Media retains control over who Righthaven sues.

6/14/2011 - Court concluded that there was no absolute transfer of any right within copyright, and that Stephens Media, the original copyright holder, retained actual control even over the right to sue for infringement. Finding that "[p]ursuant to Section 501(b) of the 1976 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et. seq., only the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under copyright law is entitled, or has standing, to sue for infringement," the court held that Righthaven lacks the ability to bring the instant case. As such, it grants Democratic Undergound's motion for summary judgment, and dismisses as moot the Motions from Stephens Media and Righthaven. 

On June 2, 2010, Michael Fitzgerald, owner of Chicago's All Fields of Concrete Construction, filed a defamation lawsuit against Helen Maslona in Illinois state court.  The lawsuit seeks $10,000 in damages and court costs.

According to news reports, the lawsuit is based on a negative review of the company submitted by Maslona to the popular consumer review website Angie's List.  Maslona had contacted All Fields of Concrete Construction to request an estimate for performing work, based on the company's Angie's List profile which indicated that Maslona's neighborhood was one of the ones serviced by the company.  Upon being informed that the company did not accept work in her neighborhood, Maslona allegedly submitted a negative review of the company to Angie's List, giving it an "F."

Court documents indicate that an attorney has appeared in the case on behalf of Maslona, and has filed a motion on her behalf. 

On April 8, 2010, attorneys for former Vance County commissioner Thomas S. Hester, Jr. served a subpoena on Jason A. Feingold, editor of the Home in Henderson blog, commanding him to appear for a deposition and to turn over identifying information for 20 blog commenters. The comments in question were attached to Feingold's blog post entitled "Arrest Made in Elder Abuse Case," which appeared on Home in Henderson eight months prior. According to Hester's complaint, the commenters used screen names like "Beautiful Dreamer" and "Fatboy" to make false statements suggesting that Hester was a slumlord and should be jailed.

Feingold and Home in Henderson filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that both the North Carolina shield law and the First Amendment protect the commenters' identifies from disclosure.

On June 28, 2010, Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr. found that the statements of six of the twenty commenters were actionable and enforced the subpoena as to these commenters. The court quashed the subpoena with respect to the remaining commenters. Three days later, Robert D. Gupton identified himself on a local radio show as "Point Keeper," one of the six commenters.