Gatelli v. Does [1]

Joseph Pilchesky, operator of the website Doherty Deceit [2], sued Judy Gatelli, the President of the Scranton, Pennsylvania City Council, for defamation after she canceled a city council meeting in response to what she called threats of violence posted on the website.  Gatelli filed a counterclaim for defamation, conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Pilchesky, his wife, and more than ninety anonymous posters to a Doherty Deceit message board.  Gatelli petitioned the Pennsylvania state court to compel Pilchesky to reveal the identities of the anonymous posters.  Mr. Pilchesky objected, indicating that he would not disclose the identities of his site users.

Paul Levy of Public Citizen appeared on behalf of seven anonymous defendants and also opposed Gatelli's petition for discovery.  The court initially ruled that Gatelli's request did not provide sufficient information to warrant disclosure.  In response, Gatelli filed an amended petition that listed forty-two posters and identified specific statements by each. She also submitted an affidavit stating that the identified statements were false and that she had suffered reputational and emotional injury as a result of their publication.

In a second ruling, the court ordered Pilchesky to reveal the identities of six of the posters, but denied disclosure as to all other posters. The court applied the standard for disclosure set forth in Polito v. AOL Time Warner [3], 2004 WL 3768897 (Ct. Comm. Pls. Jan. 28, 2004), which requires a plaintiff to show the following things before obtaining compelled disclosure of an anonymous commenter's identity: (1) that she satisfactorily states a cognizable claim under Pennsylvania law; (2) that the identifying information is directly related to her claim and fundamentally necessary to secure relief; (3) that she is seeking the requested information in good faith and not for some improper purpose such as harassing, intimidating, or silencing her critics; and (4) that she is unable to discover the identity of the anonymous speakers by alternative means.  Slip. op. [4] at 4-5.  This test appears to require only valid allegations, not evidence to support each element of the underlying defamation claim.

Applying this standard, the court determined that six statements alleging "serious sexual misconduct" formed the basis of a cognizable defamation claim under Pennsylvania law, and ordered disclosure of the identities of the authors of those statements.

Pilchesky has indicated that he will appeal the judge's order.