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

Home > Roebuck v. Trib Total Media, Inc.

Roebuck v. Trib Total Media, Inc. [1]

Submitted by DMLP Staff on Tue, 04/20/2010 - 14:30

Summary

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Date: 

01/12/2010

Status: 

Pending

Location: 

Pennsylvania

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

N/A

Legal Claims: 

Defamation
Karen Roebuck, a former employee of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, commenced legal action against Tribune-Review publisher Trib Total Media, two of its editors, and a John Doe defendant over comments posted to the unaffiliated VoyForums site,  self-described as "a forum to... read full description
Parties

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Trib Total Media, Inc.; James Cuddy, Jr.; Frank Craig; John Doe a/k/a "None"

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Location of Party: 

  • Pennsylvania

Location of Party: 

  • Pennsylvania

Legal Counsel: 

John Newborg (motion to withdraw filed)

Legal Counsel: 

Ronald Barber
Description

Karen Roebuck, a former employee of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, commenced legal action against Tribune-Review publisher Trib Total Media, two of its editors, and a John Doe defendant over comments posted to the unaffiliated VoyForums [2] site,  self-described as "a forum to talk about issues affecting the Pittsburgh media scene."

Roebuck used an unusual procedure which allows her to commence the action using a "writ of summons" without filing a complaint.  In a motion to extend time to file a complaint, Roebuck indicated that she intends to bring a libel action based on two statements posted on VoyForums [2] by an unknown person using the pseudonym "None."   The court granted Roebuck 60 days to conduct discovery in support of filing a complaint.

In February 2010, Roebuck served a subpoena [3] on VoyForums seeking documents showing the IP address for "None."  VoyForums posted a notice on its forum indicating that it would comply with the subpoena unless someone came forward to file a motion to quash within 30 days.

Defendants Trib Total Media, Frank Craig, and James Cuddy filed a motion to quash [4] the subpoena on March 26, 2010, and supplemented it with a brief [5] on April 5. The brief argues that the subpoena is a "nullity" because it was served on VoyForums, which is based in California, without issuing from a California court.  It also argues that Roebuck has not made the showing required to unmask a pseudonymous speaker under Melvin v. Doe, 49 Pa. D. & C. 4th 449 (Allegh. Co. 2000).

Related Links: 

  • Pittsburgh City Paper: Lawyers step in where angels fear to tread: Another online post prompts legal action [6]
  • VoyForums Subpoena (.jpg) [3]
  • Case Docket (enter GD-10-000727 to access page) [7]
Details

Web Site(s) Involved: 

VoyForums [2]

Content Type: 

  • Text

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Subject Area: 

  • Anonymity
  • User Comments or Submissions
Court Information & Documents

Jurisdiction: 

  • Pennsylvania

Source of Law: 

  • Pennsylvania

Court Name: 

Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

Court Type: 

State

Case Number: 

GD-10-000727

Relevant Documents: 

PDF icon 2010-01-12-Roebuck Praecipe for a Writ of Summons.pdf [8]
PDF icon 2010-01-14-Defendants' Praecipe for Rule to File Complaint.pdf [9]
PDF icon 2010-03-01-Defendants' Opposition to Motion to Extend Time to File a Complaint.pdf [10]
PDF icon 2010-03-01-Roebuck Motion to Extend Time to File Complaint.pdf [11]
PDF icon 2010-03-26-Defendants Motion for a Protective Order or to Quash.pdf [12]
PDF icon 2010-04-05-Defendants' Brief in Support of Motion to Quash.pdf [13]

DMLP Logo


Source URL (modified on 08/20/2014 - 11:11pm): https://www.dmlp.org/threats/roebuck-v-trib-total-media-inc

Links
[1] https://www.dmlp.org/threats/roebuck-v-trib-total-media-inc
[2] http://www.voy.com/158430/
[3] http://www.voy.com/images/legal/Roebuck_v._Craig,_et_al-subpoena-20100228.jpg
[4] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2010-03-26-Defendants%20Motion%20for%20a%20Protective%20Order%20or%20to%20Quash.pdf
[5] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2010-04-05-Defendants%27%20Brief%20in%20Support%20of%20Motion%20to%20Quash.pdf
[6] http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A76287
[7] https://dcr.alleghenycounty.us/SelectCaseID.asp?filename=Welcome.htm&NoLoginRequired=yes
[8] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2010-01-12-Roebuck%20Praecipe%20for%20a%20Writ%20of%20Summons.pdf
[9] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2010-01-14-Defendants%27%20Praecipe%20for%20Rule%20to%20File%20Complaint.pdf
[10] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2010-03-01-Defendants%27%20Opposition%20to%20Motion%20to%20Extend%20Time%20to%20File%20a%20Complaint.pdf
[11] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2010-03-01-Roebuck%20Motion%20to%20Extend%20Time%20to%20File%20Complaint.pdf
[12] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2010-03-26-Defendants%20Motion%20for%20a%20Protective%20Order%20or%20to%20Quash.pdf
[13] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2010-04-05-Defendants%27%20Brief%20in%20Support%20of%20Motion%20to%20Quash.pdf