Hadley v. Subscriber Doe
2015 IL 118000
Ill.2015Background
- Hadley sued Subscriber Doe a/k/a Fuboy for defamation arising from online comments about Hadley.
- Hadley sought Rule 224 discovery to identify Fuboy by subpoenaing Comcast after Gatehouse produced an IP address.
- Circuit court granted Rule 224 relief directing Comcast to disclose identity with notice to subscriber.
- Appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s Rule 224 relief.
- Hadley amended the complaint to add Count I defamation and Count II Rule 224 relief, and the circuit court found Rule 224 necessary and properly invoked.
- Appellate court affirmed, and this Court granted leave to appeal to resolve Rule 224 necessity and whether Hadley’s original complaint was valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Hadley’s original complaint a legal nullity? | Hadley used a real alias; Bogseth does not apply. | Bogseth bars fictitious John Doe claims; Hadley’s use of alias invalid. | No; original complaint not a nullity. |
| Did Hadley abandon his original complaint by pursuing Rule 224 relief? | Rule 224 allows independent action; procedure followed as instructed. | Rule 224 action is standalone; amendments cannot relate back. | Procedural irregularities do not render Rule 224 relief invalid. |
| What standard governs Rule 224 necessit y for defamation? | Must plead sufficient defamation facts to survive 2-615. | Must apply higher Dendrite-like standard. | Rule 224 necessit y evaluated via 2-615 pleading standard. |
| Does Hadley state a defamation claim that can withstand a 2-615 dismissal? | Statement imputes crime; context shows likely defamatory per se. | Statement could be innocent construction or non-factual. | Yes; Hadley states a defamation claim and the complaint survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bogseth v. Emanuel, 166 Ill. 2d 507 (Ill. 1995) (fictitious-party suits invalid; must name real party to proceed)
- Stone v. Paddock Publications, Inc., 2011 IL App (1st) 093386 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2011) (Rule 224 necessity considerations and first-amendment concerns)
- Maxon v. Ottawa Publishing Co., 402 Ill. App. 3d 704 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2010) (Rule 224 necessity; rejects Dendrite-Cahill approach; upholds fact-pleading standard)
- Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558 (Ill. 2006) (defamation in context; factors for factual content and verifiability)
- Tuite v. Corbitt, 224 Ill. 2d 490 (Ill. 2006) (defamatory per se can be actionable if not subject to innocent construction)