Enterline v. The Pocono Record [1]

Brenda Enterline subpoenaed The Pocono Record, a daily newspaper and news website serving northeast Pennsylvania, seeking the identity of individuals who made anonymous forum posts on its website [2].  

In September 2008, Enterline sued the Pocono Medical Center for sexual harassment.  The Pocono Record published an article [3] about her lawsuit in its print and online editions.  A number of commenters posted to the website forum associated with the article, and some of the comments suggested that the authors had personal knowledge of the facts at issue in Enterline's lawsuit.  She then subpoenaed The Pocono Record, seeking information identifying eight of the anonymous speakers. The newspaper objected to the subpoena, arguing that it was premature (discovery had not yet commenced in the lawsuit), that it violated the First Amendment rights of the commenters, and that the reporter's privilege protected the identity of the commenters as sources.  Enterline line moved to compel The Record to comply and for sanctions.

The district court denied Enterline's motion. It held that The Record had standing to assert the First Amendment rights of the third-party anonymous commenters and that disclosure was not warranted under the circumstances.  The court refrained from determining "the full extent of the First Amendment right to anonymity," instead deciding the case based on the "good faith" standard applied in Doe v. 2TheMart.com [4], 140 F.Supp.2d 1088 (W.D. Was. 2001), which Enterline had argued for in her brief.  Under this standard, the court determined that disclosure was not appropriate because Enterline had not demonstrated that the information was unavailable from other sources.  The court did not address the newspaper's other grounds for refusing to comply with the subpoena.