In Re: Times Picayune, L.L.C.
561 F. App'x 402
5th Cir.2014Background
- Times-Picayune (operator of Nola.com) publishes an article with an anonymous comments section containing inflammatory remarks about Stacey Jackson, a defendant in a federal corruption prosecution.
- Jackson suspected those anonymous comments might have been authored by federal prosecutors and sought identifying information to investigate possible prosecutorial misconduct.
- The district court found a reasonable possibility that government attorneys authored the comments and ordered the Times-Picayune to produce commenter identifying information for in camera review.
- Times-Picayune petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus to vacate the district court’s order, arguing the order failed to adequately protect anonymous-speech rights under the First Amendment.
- The Fifth Circuit applied the high standard for mandamus relief: no other adequate means, clear and indisputable error, and discretionary appropriateness.
- The Fifth Circuit denied the petition, concluding the district court’s balancing and in camera-review order were not clearly and indisputably erroneous and that mandamus was not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should issue to vacate district court’s order compelling commenter ID for in camera review | Times-Picayune: order infringes anonymous First Amendment speech and is subject to mandamus because district court clearly erred | Jackson: need for identity disclosure to investigate prosecutorial misconduct and protect due process outweighs anonymity concerns | Denied — mandamus not appropriate; district court did not clearly and indisputably err in balancing rights or ordering in camera review |
Key Cases Cited
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (recognizes anonymity as protected First Amendment speech)
- Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394 (1976) (describes mandamus as a drastic remedy and its limited use)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (sets three prerequisites for mandamus relief)
- In re Occidental Petrol. Corp., 217 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2000) (mandamus requires showing district court clearly and indisputably erred)
- In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2011) (collects and discusses approaches balancing anonymity vs. litigant discovery needs)