Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Sinclair Memo Opp

Sinclair Memo Opp

Ratings: (0)|Views: 49 |Likes:
Published by Sheila
Memo Opp
Memo Opp

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Sheila on Jan 21, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/16/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIALAWRENCE SINCLAIR,))Plaintiff,))v.)No. 1:08-cv-00434-HH)TubeSockTedD, mzmolly and OWNINGLIARS,))Defendants.)
MEMORANDUM OF DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND AND MZMOLLYIN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPELDEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAAND TO COMPEL PUBLIC CITIZEN TO COMPLY WITH LETTER FROMPLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL “DEMANDING” INFORMATIONTABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities...........................................................iiiSTATEMENT OF THE CASE...................................................2A. Factual Background...................................................2B. Proceedings to Date....................................................7SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...................................................9I. THE FIRST AMENDMENT BARS THE DISCOVERY SOUGHT FROMDEMOCRATICUNDERGROUND.COM....................................13A.The First Amendment Protects Against the Compelled Identification oAnonymous Internet Speakers.............................................13B. The Qualified Privilege for Anonymous Speech Supports a Five-Part Standardfor the Identification of John Doe Defendants.................................17C. Sinclair Has Not Followed The Steps Required Before Identification of JohnDoe Speakers May Be Ordered in This Case..................................231. Require Notice of the Threat to Anonymity and an Opportunityto Defend It...............................................23
Case 1:08-cv-00434-HHK Document 12 Filed 04/30/2008 Page 1 of 55
 
-ii-2. Demand Specificity Concerning the Statements...................243. Review the Facial Validity of the Complaint After the StatementsAre Specified..............................................25a. Plaintiff Has Not Sufficiently Pleaded Jurisdiction...............25 b. The Complaint Does Not Plead a Valid Claim for Defamation.....284. Require an Evidentiary Basis for the Claims..........................325. Balance the Equities.............................................35D. The
 Dendrite / Mobilisa
Standard Strikes the Right Balance of Interests.........39II. THE MOTION TO COMPEL PUBLIC CITIZEN TO COMPLY WITHMR. SIBLEY’S LETTER REQUESTING IDENTIFICATION OF MR. LEVY’SCLIENT IS BARRED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, AND RULES 37(a)(3)(B) AND 45(c)(2)(B)(I).............40III. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
 
...........................................43Conclusion..................................................................44
Case 1:08-cv-00434-HHK Document 12 Filed 04/30/2008 Page 2 of 55
 
-iii-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES
 ACLU v. Johnson
,4 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (D.N.M. 1998).........................................14
 ACLU v. Miller 
,977 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga. 1997).........................................14
 Alvis Coatings v. Doe
, 2004 WL 2904405
 
2004 WL 2904405 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 2, 2004).................................21
 Anderson v. Kammeier 
,262 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. 1977).............................................31
 ApolloMEDIA Corp. v. Reno
,526 U.S. 1061 (1999)
 ,aff’g 
19 F. Supp.2d 1081 (C.D. Cal. 1998)...................................14
 Asay v. Hallmark Cards
,594 F.2d 692 (8th Cir. 1979)..............................................25
 Baird v. Koerner, 
279 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1960)..............................................42
 Barrett v. Rosenthal 
,40 Cal. 4th 33, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 55, 146 P.3d 510 (Cal. 2006) .....................30
 Bates v. City of Little Rock 
,361 U.S. 516 (1960)..................................................15, 16
 Batzel v. Smith
,333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003).............................................30
 Beatty v. Ellings
,285 Minn. 293, 173 N.W.2d 12 (Minn.1969).................................29
 Best Western Int’l v. Doe
,2006 WL 2091695 (D. Ariz. July 25, 2006)..................................21
 
* An asterisk marks the authorities on which principal reliance is placed
Case 1:08-cv-00434-HHK Document 12 Filed 04/30/2008 Page 3 of 55

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->