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

Home > Matrixx Initiatives v. Barbary Coast Capital

Matrixx Initiatives v. Barbary Coast Capital [1]

Submitted by DMLP Staff on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 19:37

Summary

Threat Type: 

Subpoena

Date: 

02/11/2005

Status: 

Concluded

Location: 

California

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

N/A

Legal Claims: 

None
Anonymous users posted negative comments about Matrixx Initiatives on the Yahoo! Finance and Silicon Investor message boards. Matrixx filed a lawsuit against the anonymous "John Doe" posters in an Arizona court alleging defamation and other claims. Matrixx received information from Yahoo! that... read full description
Parties

Party Issuing Legal Threat: 

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Barbary Coast Capital Management, LLC; Stephen Worthington

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Location of Party: 

  • Arizona

Location of Party: 

  • California

Legal Counsel: 

Michael Reynolds, Richard Derevan, Marc Turman, Jeffrey M. Singletary, Kevin J. Parker -- Snell & Wilmer LLP

Legal Counsel: 

Erick Howard, Robert Schaberg - Shartsis Friese LLP (for Barbary Capital); David H.S. Commins - Commins Templeton & Webster, PC (for Stephen Worthington)
Description

Anonymous users posted negative comments about Matrixx Initiatives on the Yahoo! Finance and Silicon Investor message boards. Matrixx filed a lawsuit against the anonymous "John Doe" posters in an Arizona court alleging defamation and other claims. Matrixx received information from Yahoo! that some of the postings could be traced to computers owned by Barbary Coast Capital Management, LLC, a San Francisco hedge fund. Matrixx got permission from the Arizona court to take a deposition in California of Stephen Worthington, a manager at Barbary Coast. During the deposition, counsel for Matrixx asked Worthington about the identity of the anonymous posters, and he refused to reveal their identity or to say whether he was one of them. Matrixx obtained an order from the Santa Clara Superior Court in California requiring Worthington to answer the questions.

Barbary Coast and Worthington appealed the trial court's decision, claiming that it violated the posters' First Amendment right to speak anonymously. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that Barbary Coast and Worthington lacked the standing to assert the First Amendment rights of the anonymous posters.

Related Links: 

  • Metropolitan News-Enterprise: Witness Must Identify Source of Anonymous Web Postings [2]
  • Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP, E-Commerce News: Company Lacks Standing to Assert First Amendment [3]
  • Cyberslapp.org: Matrixx Initiatives v. Doe [4]
  • Internet Cases: Company had no standing to challenge discovery on behalf of anonymous defamers [5]
  • CMLP: Matrixx Initiatives v. John Doe [6]
  • CMLP: Matrixx Initiatives v. Mulligan [7]

 

Details

Web Site(s) Involved: 

Yahoo! Finance [8]
Silicon Investor [9]

Content Type: 

  • Text

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Subject Area: 

  • Anonymity
  • User Comments or Submissions
Court Information & Documents

Jurisdiction: 

  • California

Court Name: 

California Superior Court, Santa Clara County; Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District

Court Type: 

State

Case Number: 

102-CV-813627 (trial level); H028699 (appellate level)

Relevant Documents: 

PDF icon matrixx court of appeals decision.pdf [10]
PDF icon matrixx respondents brief.pdf [11]
PDF icon Matrix appelantsopeningbrief july 27 05.pdf [12]
PDF icon matrixx appelantsreplybrief sep 30 05.pdf [13]

DMLP Logo


Source URL (modified on 08/20/2014 - 11:03pm): https://www.dmlp.org/threats/matrixx-initiatives-v-barbary-coast-capital

Links
[1] https://www.dmlp.org/threats/matrixx-initiatives-v-barbary-coast-capital
[2] http://www.metnews.com/articles/2006/matr041906.htm
[3] http://www.graydon.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/news_events.newsletter_detail/object_id/ec3aa235-0d0b-4c9a-aa8f-b28902f37e78/COMPANYLACKSSTANDINGTOASSERTFIRSTAMENDMENTEMPLOYEESEMAILDELIVERYOFCOMPANYINFOMAYVIOLATEFEDERALLAW.cfm
[4] http://www.cyberslapp.org/cases/page.cfm?pageID=61
[5] http://blog.internetcases.com/2006/04/26/company-had-no-standing-to-challenge-discovery-on-behalf-of-anonymous-defamers/
[6] https://www.dmlp.org/threats/matrixx-initiatives-v-john-doe
[7] https://www.dmlp.org/threats/matrixx-initiatives-inc-v-mulligan
[8] http://finance.yahoo.com
[9] http://www.siliconinvestor.com
[10] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/matrixx%20court%20of%20appeals%20decision.pdf
[11] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/matrixx%20respondents%20brief.pdf
[12] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/Matrix%20appelantsopeningbrief%20july%2027%2005.pdf
[13] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/matrixx%20appelantsreplybrief%20sep%2030%2005.pdf