Doe I v. Individuals
561 F. Supp. 2d 249 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To overcome an anonymous internet user's First Amendment right to speak anonymously, a plaintiff seeking to unmask their identity through a subpoena must make a concrete evidentiary showing of a prima facie case for the claims alleged against the user.
Facts:
- Jane Doe II, a female student at Yale Law School, was the subject of numerous harassing and threatening posts on the website AutoAdmit.com between 2005 and 2007.
- Posters made derogatory comments about Doe II's body and falsely alleged that she had a sexually transmitted disease, abused heroin, and fantasized about being raped.
- An anonymous user with the pseudonym 'AK47' posted a message falsely stating, 'Alex Atkind, Stephen Reynolds, [Doe II], and me: GAY LOVERS.'
- After Doe II and another student filed a lawsuit, 'AK47' posted another message stating, 'Women named Jill and Doe II should be raped,' and created a thread titled 'Inflicting emotional distress on cheerful girls named [Doe II].'
- As a result of the posts, Doe II suffered severe emotional distress, reputational harm, and interference with her education, and felt compelled to disclose the online harassment to potential employers during job interviews.
Procedural Posture:
- Jane Doe I and Jane Doe II filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against thirty-nine anonymous individuals.
- The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to engage in limited, expedited discovery to uncover the defendants' identities.
- Plaintiffs issued a subpoena duces tecum to AT&T Internet Services for information to identify the user known as 'AK47'.
- AT&T notified its subscriber, who identifies as John Doe 21, of the subpoena.
- John Doe 21 filed a motion to quash the subpoena and a separate motion to proceed anonymously in the litigation.
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 an anonymous internet user's First Amendment right to free speech prevent a plaintiff from discovering their identity through a subpoena when the plaintiff has made a concrete showing of a prima facie case for libel?
Opinions:
Majority - Droney, J.
No. The First Amendment right to anonymous speech does not prevent a plaintiff from discovering an anonymous user's identity when the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for libel. Although the First Amendment protects anonymous speech on the internet, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against a plaintiff's right to use the judicial process to seek redress for actionable wrongs. The court rejects standards that are too deferential to plaintiffs (e.g., 'good faith basis') or too burdensome (e.g., summary judgment standard) and adopts a test requiring the plaintiff to make a concrete showing of a prima facie case. Here, Doe II successfully established a prima facie case for libel under Connecticut law by showing that AK47's statement was (1) defamatory, as it discussed her sexual behavior in a way that could harm her reputation with potential employers; (2) identified her by name; (3) was published to a wide audience on the internet; and (4) caused her reputational injury. Because Doe II has presented a sufficient evidentiary basis for her claim, her right to discovery outweighs Doe 21's First Amendment interest in remaining anonymous.
Analysis:
This ruling establishes a significant, middle-ground standard for unmasking anonymous online speakers in civil litigation. By adopting the 'prima facie case' requirement, the court provides a clear framework that balances the constitutional right to anonymous speech with the need to hold individuals accountable for tortious online conduct like defamation. This standard avoids encouraging frivolous lawsuits designed to silence critics (which a lower 'good faith' standard might permit) while also ensuring that legitimate victims of online torts are not blocked from seeking redress by an impossibly high evidentiary bar (like a summary judgment standard) before discovery has even begun. The decision provides a persuasive model for other jurisdictions grappling with how to apply traditional legal principles in the context of anonymous internet communication.
Unlock the full brief for Doe I v. Individuals