Stone v. Paddock Publications, Inc.
356 Ill. Dec. 284
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Lisa Stone, as mother and next friend for Jed Stone, seeks Rule 224 discovery to identify a poster, Hipcheck16, who allegedly defamed Jed on a newspaper website’s comment board.
- Comments were posted by Hipcheck16 (and UncleW) about Stone’s campaign; Jed used the screen name UncleW.
- The petition sought the identity of Hipcheck16 through respondent Paddock Publications, Inc. (Daily Herald website owner) based on an April–April 2009 posting history.
- Comcast’s subscriber identity for IP 24.1.3.203 was sought via subpoena; Comcast informed the subscriber and petitioner.
- The trial court allowed pre-suit discovery limited to identifying responsible persons; later Comcast and Doe moved to quash and sought defense of First Amendment rights.
- Petitioner later alleged a defamation claim but the court ultimately held no actionable defamation and reversed the discovery orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for Rule 224 discovery | Stone argues a proper Rule 224 standard applies. | Doe argues a higher prima facie standard is needed. | Probable cause standard governs Rule 224. |
| Defamation sufficiency | Stone asserts potentially actionable defamation. | Doe contends statements lack factual assertions and are protected. | Petitioner failed to plead a cognizable defamation claim. |
| First Amendment protection of anonymous speech | Anonymous speech should be protected; discovery should be limited. | Identities may be discovered where necessary for civil redress. | Balanced approach; discovery denied where defamation not shown. |
| Relation to 2-402 and discovery rules | Rule 224 aligns with discovery in pari materia with 2-402. | Higher standard not required for Rule 224. | Rule 224 and 2-402 share policy; standard consistent with probable cause (as applied by concurring voice). |
| Impact on procedures and litigation efficiency | Pre-suit discovery should not compel full prima facie case. | Stringent requirements prevent frivolous abuse. | Rule 224 petitions must allege enough to support a potential claim; otherwise denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maxon v. Ottawa Publishing Co., 402 Ill.App.3d 704 (2010) (establishes balancing standard for Rule 224; requires verified petition, particularity, and connection to defamation; supports common standard with 2-615.)
- Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 170 P.3d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (notice/summary judgment approach rejected for Rule 224; discovery context pre-suit.)
- Imperial Apparel, Ltd. v. Cosmo's Designer Direct, Inc., 227 Ill.2d 381 (2008) (defamation protection depends on factual assertion content and context.)
- Bogseth v. Emanuel, 166 Ill.2d 507 (1995) (purpose to deter frivolous actions and prevent naming everyone as a defendant.)
- Iseberg v. Gross, 227 Ill.2d 78 (2007) (pleading standards and constitutional considerations in defamation contexts.)