Digital Media Law Project
Published on Digital Media Law Project (https://www.dmlp.org)

Home > Brown v. Doe

Brown v. Doe [1]

Submitted by DMLP Staff on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:53

Summary

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Date: 

03/27/2012

Status: 

Pending

Location: 

Nevada

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

N/A

Legal Claims: 

Defamation
On March 27, 2012, Mary and Phil Brown filed suit in Nevada state court against an annonymous online commenter. According to news reports, a commenter on the Las Vegas Review-Journal's website posted allegedly defamatory statements about the plaintiffs' romantic history. The... read full description
Parties

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

John or Jane Doe

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Location of Party: 

  • Nevada

Location of Party: 

  • Nevada

Legal Counsel: 

Gregory L. Denue

Legal Counsel: 

Tony L. Abbatangelo
Description

On March 27, 2012, Mary and Phil Brown filed suit in Nevada state court against an annonymous online commenter. According to news reports [2], a commenter on the Las Vegas Review-Journal's website posted allegedly defamatory statements about the plaintiffs' romantic history. The Browns instituted the defamation action and subpoenaed the Review-Journal for the commenter's identity.

On April 6, Doe, through an attorney, filed a motion to quash [3] the subpoena. Doe argues that the court should apply the Dendrite [4] test to determine whether Doe's identity should be revealed. According to the motion to quash, the Browns failed to meet the first three prongs of the Dendrite test by failing: (1) to make reasonable attempts to contact Doe; (2) to allege the specific defamatory statements at issue; and (3) to allege a prima facie case that could withstand summary judgment by failing to demonstrate that the comments were made negligently. In arguing that Doe's contested post was not written negligently, Doe alleges that the post was written based on information from individuals with knowledge of the Browns' relationship history. Finally, under the fourth Dendrite prong—a balancing test between the parties' rights—Doe argued that the Browns had suffered little if any harm from the comment, and that the Review-Journal's comment sections were so filled with "nonsensical comments" that no reader would take them seriously. 

Related Links: 

  • Las Vegas Review-Journal: Lawsuit filed against anonymous commenter [2]
Details

Web Site(s) Involved: 

Las Vegas Review-Journal [5]

Content Type: 

  • Text

Publication Medium: 

Website

Subject Area: 

  • Defamation
  • Legal Threat
  • Anonymity
  • Subpoenas
Court Information & Documents

Jurisdiction: 

  • Nevada

Source of Law: 

  • United States
  • Nevada

Court Name: 

Clark County District Court, Nevada

Court Type: 

State

Case Number: 

A-12-658911-C

Relevant Documents: 

PDF icon 2012-04-06-MotionToQuash.pdf [6]
CMLP Information (Private)

CMLP Notes: 

4/20/12: JS creating

DMLP Logo


Source URL (modified on 08/20/2014 - 11:12pm): https://www.dmlp.org/threats/brown-v-doe

Links
[1] https://www.dmlp.org/threats/brown-v-doe
[2] http://www.lvrj.com/news/lawsuit-filed-against-anonymous-commenter-146777995.html
[3] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2012-04-06-MotionToQuash.pdf
[4] https://www.dmlp.org/threats/dendrite-international-v-does
[5] http://www.lvrj.com/
[6] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2012-04-06-MotionToQuash.pdf