John Doe No. 1 v. Susan L. Burke
91 A.3d 1031
| D.C. | 2014Background
- Susan L. Burke, an attorney who litigated high-profile cases against private military contractors (including Abtan v. Blackwater), discovered allegedly false edits on her Wikipedia page and sued anonymously identified editors for defamation and related torts.
- Burke issued a subpoena to Wikipedia seeking the identifying information for the anonymous user “Zujua” (John Doe No. 1); Zujua moved to quash under the D.C. Anti‑SLAPP Act’s special motion to quash provision and alternatively sought a protective order.
- The Superior Court denied the special motion to quash in a one‑page order, finding the edit was not on an "issue of public interest," that Burke was not a public figure, and that Burke had shown a likelihood of success on the merits; Zujua appealed interlocutorily.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals considered (1) whether denial of an Anti‑SLAPP special motion to quash is immediately appealable, and (2) whether the Superior Court erred in denying the motion on the merits.
- The court interpreted the Anti‑SLAPP statute: a movant must make a prima facie showing the claim arises from an act in furtherance of advocacy on an issue of public interest; if so, the plaintiff can still defeat the motion by showing likelihood of success on the merits.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the order was immediately appealable under the collateral‑order doctrine, held that Burke is a limited‑purpose public figure, found Zujua made the required prima facie showing, and held Burke failed to show a likelihood of success (actual malice) on her defamation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Burke's Argument | Zujua's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of denial of Anti‑SLAPP special motion to quash | Denial is not immediately appealable absent statutory provision; should wait for final judgment | Denial irreparably destroys anonymity and is collaterally appealable | Denial is immediately appealable under the collateral‑order doctrine (order meets conclusivity, separability, and effective‑unreviewability tests) |
| Whether the Wikipedia edit concerned an "issue of public interest" | Edit concerned Burke personally; not a public‑interest matter and maybe commercially motivated | Edit related to public controversy over Nisour Square/Blackwater and thus falls within Anti‑SLAPP protection | Edit qualified as an act on an issue of public interest (statute construed to include public‑figure matters); movant satisfied prima facie showing |
| Whether Burke is a public figure (limiting public‑figure inquiry) | Burke is not a public figure merely for practicing law; she did not assume special prominence | Burke’s high‑profile representation, press releases, and media attention made her a limited‑purpose public figure | Burke is a limited‑purpose public figure for the Nisour Square/Blackwater controversy under the Waldbaum/Moss framework |
| Whether Burke showed likelihood of success on defamation merits (actual malice) | Burke argued the edit was false and that she could likely prove malice (including possible Blackwater affiliation) | Zujua contended the edit reflected mistake/confusion, not actual malice | Burke failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Zujua acted with actual malice; likelihood of success not established, so motion to quash should have been granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (Anti‑SLAPP characterization and purpose; denying SLAPP relief can be appealable)
- Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2010) (orders denying Anti‑SLAPP protection are collateral and appealable)
- Henry v. Lake Charles Am. Press, 566 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2009) (discussing appealability and separability of Anti‑SLAPP rulings)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1949) (formulation of the collateral‑order doctrine permitting immediate appeal of certain interlocutory orders)
- Mohawk Indus. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (U.S. 2009) (limits on piecemeal interlocutory appeals; collateral‑order criteria emphasized)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974) (public‑figure doctrine and its effect on required fault in defamation actions)
- N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice standard protects freedom of debate about public issues)
- Moss v. Stockard, 580 A.2d 1011 (D.C. 1990) (adopts Waldbaum limited‑purpose public‑figure test in D.C. law)
- Solers, Inc. v. Doe, 977 A.2d 941 (D.C. 2009) (recognition that anonymous speech can implicate First Amendment interests)