Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court
661 F.3d 1168
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Quixtar sues TEAM over alleged Internet smear campaign and seeks identification of anonymous online speakers.
- Discovery seeks Dickie, TEAM's Online Content Manager, to reveal the speakers' identities; Dickie resists on First Amendment grounds.
- District court orders Dickie to disclose three speakers' identities.
- Anonymous Online Speakers petition for mandamus to block disclosure; Quixtar cross-petitions seeking disclosure from remaining sources.
- Ninth Circuit denies both petitions, applying a First Amendment–discovery balancing framework and evaluating the district court's Cahill-based approach for disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is proper to review the district court discovery order. | Anonymous Online Speakers seek to block disclosure. | Quixtar seeks disclosure via mandamus. | Petitions denied; mandamus not warranted. |
| What standard governs the balance of anonymous speech against discovery in this commercial-context case. | Balance using a heightened standard like Cahill. | Disclose under a permitting standard; Cahill not required here. | Court rejects Cahill as too strict; emphasizes speech type and context in balancing. |
| Whether the district court’s order was clearly erroneous under the applicable standard. | Disclose or misapply balance; potential error. | Order properly weighed interests and should stand. | No clear error; order not overturned. |
Key Cases Cited
- Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) (anonymity as protected speech component)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (anonymity is a protected aspect of speech)
- Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (no special First Amendment scrutiny for Internet speech; anonymity valued)
- Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (commercial speech protected to a degree; not wholly unprotected)
- Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005) (high bar for disclosure in Cahill (Delaware) context)
- Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (discovery in political association context; heightened relevance standard)
- Doe v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811 (2010) (context for balancing anonymous speech in discovery)
- Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 577 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 2009) (commercial speech with substantial governmental interest in disclosure)