Pilchesky v. Gatelli
12 A.3d 430
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant runs a Scranton-area political website with a pseudonymous message board; posts are attributed to user pseudonyms, not real names.
- Appellee, a city official, alleged defamation and related claims arising from posts on the board; she sought to disclose the identities of John Doe defendants.
- Appellant received a petition to compel disclosure and a preservation order; the court required notice and a process for Doe defendants to object.
- Trial court granted disclosure for six Doe defendants in part, and Appellee sought to expand to additional Does; represented Does opposed disclosure.
- Appellant appealed the October 1, 2008 order; Appellee cross-appealed for disclosure of more Does; the Superior Court sua sponte reviewed collateral-order issues.
- Court remands for adoption of a four-part, Dendrite/Cahill–style test balancing anonymity against defamation rights; cross-appeal regarding additional Does was quashed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the discovery order proper under First Amendment anonymity protections? | Pilchesky argues six identities were disclosed without a proper prima facie basis. | Gatelli argues the order was proper to uncover defamatory speakers. | Order vacated; remanded for proper four-part test. |
| Is Appellee's cross-appeal to disclose eight more Does properly before the court as collateral review? | Pilchesky contends cross-appeal should be reviewable collateralwise. | Gatelli contends insufficient collateral-review basis. | Cross-appeal quashed. |
| What standard governs disclosure of anonymous defamers on the internet in PA? | Plaintiff supports collateral-reviewable, Dendrite/Cahill-type approach. | Defendant argues for standard less protective of anonymity. | Adopt a four-part modified Dendrite/Cahill framework (notification, prima facie evidence, good-faith affidavit, balancing). |
| What evidentiary threshold is required to compel disclosure? | Plaintiff must show prima facie case sufficient to weather summary-judgment standard. | Defendant asserts insufficient evidence to compel disclosure. | Plaintiff must provide evidence meeting the prima facie/summary-judgment standard; mere pleadings insufficient. |
| What additional procedural protections are required (notification, affidavit specifics, etc.)? | Plaintiff urges proper notice and related safeguards. | Defendant argues for feasible notification and sufficient proof. | Requires explicit notification, good-faith and necessity affidavits, and tailored balancing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dendrite Int'l, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 342 N.J. Super. 134, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. Div. 2001) (adopts four-part test balancing notice, statements, prima facie evidence, and First Amendment rights)
- Doe No. 1 v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005) (summary judgment standard governs disclosure balance; notification retained; eliminates some Dendrite steps for public figures)
- Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (U.S. 1997) (First Amendment applies to Internet communications; breadth of online speech protections acknowledged)
- Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (U.S. 2002) (First Amendment protections for anonymous speech in public forums)