Ron Paul 2012 v. Does 1-10 [1]

On January 13, 2012, Ron Paul's presidential campaign organization sued anonymous YouTube users in federal court over a video posted on YouTube by user "NHLiberty4Paul" on January 4, 2012. The video [2] is critical of then-Republican presidential candidate Jon Hunstman, focusing on Huntsman's ambassadorship to China. It concludes by suggesting that viewers vote for Ron Paul instead.

The complaint [3] alleges that the video was created by parties opposed to Paul's presidential campaign, and was "deliberately calculated" to harm Paul's reputation by attaching his name to a "malicious" and "offensive" video. It further states that the video is "a classic case of dirty politics," and that Paul's campaign has absorbed "scathingly negative" media attention from news outlets that believed the video originated from the Paul campaign. The complaint alleges two counts of infringement of the Paul campaign's unregistered trademark [4] in the name "Ron Paul" under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) [5], and a count of defamation. The campaign seeks monetary damages, the removal of the video, and injunctions against future use of the "Ron Paul" mark.

On January 18, the Paul campaign applied [6] for expedited discovery to identify the YouTube users who posted the video. The application argues that the case cannot proceed until the defendants are identified, thus warranting expedited discovery on this point. The campaign seeks documents both from YouTube and from Twitter, where an account also called "NHLiberty4Paul" exists. Paul's campaign manager, Jesse Benton, also filed a declaration [6] (scroll down) stating that the Paul campaign did not produce the Huntsman video.

UPDATE:

On January 25, a magistrate judge denied [7] without prejudice the campaign's motion for expedited discovery. The magistrate applied the test from Columbia v. Seescandy.com [8], 185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1999), which requires plaintiffs to (1) identify the anonymous persons with some specificity; (2) describe all other attempts the plaintiff has made to find the anonymous persons; (3) show that the lawsuit could survive a motion to dismiss; and (4) show a "reasonable likelihood" that the anonymous persons could be identified through discovery. Since the Paul campaign's motion did not address these factors, the magistrate denied it but invited the campaign to refile with the appropriate information. 

On January 27, Public Citizen, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Digital Media Law Project filed a motion for leave [9] to file an amicus brief [9] in the case, urging the court to clarify the order of January 25th and impose the standard first articulated in Dendrite International v. Doe [10], 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. 2001). This standard requires (1) plaintiffs to provide reasonable notice to potential defendants and an opportunity for defendants to defend their anonymity before issuance of a subpoena; (2) plaintiffs to allege with specificity the speech that has allegedly violated the plaintiff's rights; (3) the court to ensure that the claim states a cause of action upon which relief can be granted as to each statement and against each defendant; (4)  plaintiffs to produce evidence supporting each element of its claims; and (5) the court to weigh the potential harm to the plaintiff from being unable to proceed against the harm to the defendant from losing the First Amendment right to anonymity.

On February 1, 2012, the court granted the motion [11] to file an amicus brief, and instructed the Paul campaign to address the arguments raised by the amici if they decide to refile a motion for expedited discovery.

On February 12, 2012, the Ron Paul Campaign filed a revised application [12] for expedited discovery. The court invited the amici Public Citizen, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Digital Media Law Project to file a memorandum addressing the revised application. The amici filed a memorandum [13]on February 22, 2012. On February 29, 2012 the Ron Paul campaign committee filed a reply brief [14].

On March 8, 2012, the court again denied the campaign's motion [15] for expedited discovery.  The judge declined to determine which test, Seescandy.com or Dendrite, applied in the case, and instead looked to the common factor in both tests: whether the plaintiff had "filed a valid complaint so the Court can be assured that the alleged claims will withstand a motion to dismiss."  The court ruled that the Paul campaign had not, writing that its arguments failed to connect the YouTube video to a commercial venture as required by the Lanham Act.  As such, its trademark claims failed to overcome the first hurdle in both tests, and no further decision as to which test applied was needed. 

Having decided that the federal causes of action failed to state a claim, the court declined to grant expedited discovery on the basis of the remaining state-law defamation claim.  The court also noted that if the Lanham Act claims were dismissed, "issues develop" over the court's ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.