Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport Co. v. Doe
92 A.3d 41
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- KGL (Kuwaiti logistics firm) sued Agility and a John Doe for defamation and related torts alleging anonymous letters signed “Scott Wilson” to DLA and USASC accused KGL of violating CISADA and affected contract awards.
- PWC (an Agility subsidiary) later admitted employees authored the letters and acted within the scope of employment; KGL sought discovery to identify the pseudonymous author(s).
- Agility objected to discovery on First Amendment grounds and relied on Pilchesky v. Gatelli, which sets a four-part test before unmasking anonymous speakers in defamation cases.
- Trial court concluded the Wilson Letters were commercial speech (less protected) and therefore Pilchesky did not apply; it compelled Agility to disclose the author’s identity.
- Agility appealed; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court treated the order as collateral and reviewable, found the letters were political (core public‑concern) speech, and vacated the discovery order, remanding for application of Pilchesky.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pilchesky’s four‑part test must be satisfied before compelling disclosure of a pseudonymous speaker in a defamation action | KGL: Pilchesky does not shield the Wilson Letters because they are commercial speech; thus disclosure is proper without full Pilchesky analysis | Agility: Pilchesky applies to all anonymous speech in defamation suits; First Amendment protects the right to anonymity here | Court held Pilchesky applies because the letters were political/public‑concern speech entitled to heightened protection; trial court’s order vacated and case remanded for Pilchesky application |
| Classification of the Wilson Letters (political/public‑concern vs. commercial speech) | KGL: Letters were commercial (aimed at affecting contract awards) and thus less protected | Agility: Letters addressed government contracting and national concerns, amounting to political/public‑interest speech | Court held the letters were political/public‑concern speech (not commercial) and receive the highest First Amendment protection |
Key Cases Cited
- Pilchesky v. Gatelli, 12 A.3d 430 (Pa. Super. 2011) (four‑part test before unmasking anonymous speakers in defamation suits)
- Melvin v. Doe, 836 A.2d 42 (Pa. 2003) (recognizing collateral reviewability of orders compelling disclosure of anonymous defendants)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (constitutional protection for defamatory falsehoods about public officials limited by actual malice standard)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (political speech receives the highest First Amendment protection)
- Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (intermediate scrutiny test for commercial speech)
- Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976) (definition and protection of commercial speech)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (protection for anonymous political speech)
- Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002) (invalidating ordinance that restricted anonymous door‑to‑door advocacy)