to the injunction but also nonparties who act with the named party.”
, 514 F.3d661, 674 (7th Cir. 2008).The Supreme Court has explained that Rule 65(d)is derived from the common law doctrine that a decree of injunction not onlybinds the parties defendant but also those identified with them in interest, in“privity” with them, represented by them or subject to their control. In essence . .. defendants may not nullify a decree by carrying out prohibited acts throughaiders and abettors, although they were not parties to the original proceeding.
Regal Knitwear Co. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd.
, 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945). In other words, “acourt may find a nonparty in contempt if that person has ‘actual knowledge’ of the court orderand ‘either abets the party named in the order or is legally identified with him.’”
, 514F.3d at 674 (quoting
Stotler & Co. v. Able
, 870 F.2d 1158, 1164 (7th Cir. 1989)).The court, however, “may not grant an enforcement order or injunction so broad as tomake punishable the conduct of persons who act independently and whose rights have not beenadjudged according to law.”
, 324 U.S. at 13;
see also United States v.Kirschenbaum
, 156 F.3d 784, 794 (7th Cir. 1998)
(“[A] district court may not enjoin non-partieswho are neither acting in concert with the enjoined party nor are in the capacity of agents,employees, officers, etc. of the enjoined party.”);
Microsystems Software, Inc. v. ScandinaviaOnline AB
226 F.3d 35, 43 (1st Cir. 2000) (“A nonparty who has acted independently of theenjoined defendant will not be bound by the injunction, and, if she has had no opportunity tocontest its validity, cannot be found in contempt without a separate adjudication.”).ANALYSISThe Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230, limits the ability of anaggrieved party to sue an internet website host for defamatory statements posted on its site by3
Case 1:09-cv-03955 Document 37 Filed 12/21/09 Page 3 of 6