Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court
39 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2735, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 487, 661 F.3d 1168 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A writ of mandamus challenging a discovery order compelling the disclosure of anonymous online speakers will be denied if the district court's decision, even when applying a highly protective legal standard, does not constitute clear error, particularly where the speech may not be purely political.
Facts:
- Quixtar, Inc. (Quixtar) is a multilevel marketing business that distributes consumer products through Independent Business Owners (IBOs).
- Signature Management TEAM, LLC (TEAM) provides business training and support materials, and was founded by two Quixtar IBOs, Orrin Woodward and Chris Brady.
- Woodward and Brady's contracts with Quixtar included post-termination non-competition and non-solicitation provisions.
- In August 2007, Woodward and Brady were terminated as IBOs by Quixtar.
- Quixtar claimed that TEAM orchestrated an Internet 'smear campaign' through anonymous postings and videos, disparaging Quixtar and inducing IBOs to terminate their contracts and join a competing multilevel marketing company affiliated with TEAM.
- The anonymous online statements included allegations that Quixtar's products were overpriced, that it refused to pay bonuses, terminated IBOs without due process, and suffered from systemic dishonesty.
- Quixtar believed the anonymous speakers making these statements were actually TEAM officers, employees, or agents.
- Benjamin Dickie, TEAM's Online Content Manager, was deposed and refused to answer questions regarding the identity of certain anonymous online speakers from five different online sources.
Procedural Posture:
- Quixtar, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Signature Management TEAM, LLC, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging claims including tortious interference with existing contracts and business relations.
- During discovery, Quixtar filed a motion to compel Benjamin Dickie, TEAM's Online Content Manager, to testify regarding his knowledge of the identity of anonymous online speakers from five different online sources.
- The district court granted in part and denied in part Quixtar's motion, ordering Dickie to testify regarding the identity of anonymous online speakers from three of the five sources.
- The Anonymous Online Speakers from those three sources filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking to block Dickie's testimony.
- Quixtar, Inc. filed a cross-petition for a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit, seeking an order to compel Dickie to reveal the speakers from the remaining two sources.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court commit clear error, warranting a writ of mandamus, by ordering the disclosure of anonymous online speakers in a civil dispute when it applies a stringent summary judgment standard, even if the speech at issue may not be purely political?
Opinions:
Majority - McKeown
No, the district court did not commit clear error warranting a writ of mandamus by ordering the disclosure of three anonymous online speakers, even while applying a highly protective legal standard. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that a writ of mandamus is an "extraordinary remedy" limited to "extraordinary causes," requiring the application of the five Bauman factors, with "clear error" being dispositive. The court acknowledged the First Amendment protection for anonymous online speech but noted this protection is not unlimited and the degree of scrutiny varies based on the type of speech (e.g., political vs. commercial). While recognizing that the district court applied the strict Doe v. Cahill "summary judgment" standard, which might be overly protective for commercial or non-political speech, the court found no clear error. The district court weighed the important value of anonymous speech against a party’s need for relevant discovery and still found disclosure appropriate for three of the sources. The Ninth Circuit declined to establish a new specific standard for anonymous online speech in discovery disputes, instead affirming that the district court's decision under even the strictest test did not constitute a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Quixtar's cross-petition for mandamus was denied because it failed to present any foundation for mandamus relief, lacking even a citation to the Bauman factors, and was classified as a "garden variety discovery dispute" not meriting the court's extraordinary power.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the exceptionally high burden required for obtaining a writ of mandamus to challenge discovery orders, particularly those involving the disclosure of anonymous online speech. It highlights the ongoing tension between First Amendment protections for anonymity and a civil litigant's need for discovery, signaling that the nature of the speech (e.g., political versus commercial) should inform the standard for disclosure. While not establishing a new test, the court suggests that applying overly strict standards for non-political anonymous speech might be inappropriate but ultimately finds that such an application, if it still leads to disclosure, does not constitute clear error. The decision underscores judicial deference to district courts' discovery decisions unless a clear abuse of discretion or legal error is unequivocally demonstrated, and it provides guidance on the stringent requirements for seeking mandamus relief.
