Ecommerce Innovations v. Doe (Subpoena) [1]

On July 14, 2008, Ecommerce Innovations filed a suit in the Central District of California against several Does alleging defamation and trade libel for posts on Ripoff Report [2], a website that allows users to post reports about individuals and companies that they believe have "ripped them off" or treated them unfairly.  After filing suit, Ecommerce served a subpoena on Xcentric Ventures, LLC, the operator of Ripoff Report, seeking the identities of the anonymous posters.  Counsel for Xcentric objected to the subpoena, and Ecommerce filed a motion in federal district court in Arizona, seeking to compel Xcentric to produce the requested information.

The district court ordered Xcentric to complay with the subpoena.  In its ruling, the court held that Ecommerce was required to present evidence sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment for those elements of its defamation or trade libel claim that were not dependent upon knowing the identity of the anonymous poster. The court analyzed five specific allegedly defamatory statements and concluded that Ecommerce had presented evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment with respect to one of the statements.

Xcentric moved to stay the order pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and the district court granted the stay, finding that the question of what standard to apply before ordering disclosure of anonymous Internet posters was significant and unanswered by the Ninth Circuit.  The court also found that Xcentric could face serious hardship because "[o]nce the identity of the anonymous poster is revealed, relief from the Ninth Circuit will no longer be available to Xcentric."

Xcentric filed a notice of appeal on March 6, 2009.  According to the docketing statement, the issues on appeal are as follows: "(1)Whether, in light of the First Amendment's protection of anonymous speech, the District Court applied the correct standard for a subpoena seeking to obtain the identity of an anonymous author; and (2) whether the District Court erred in finding that Plaintiff/Appellee met its burden of presenting evidence sufficient to overcome the First Amendment rights of the anonymous author?"