Thomas M Cooley Law School v. Doe 1
300 Mich. App. 245
Mich. Ct. App.2013Background
- Cooley sued Doe 1 and others for defamation arising from a blog post criticizing Cooley under a Pseudonym.
- Doe 1 operated a Weebly blog titled THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL SCAM using the name RockstarOS.
- Cooley obtained a California subpoena to identify Doe 1 via Weebly; California court issued the subpoena.
- Doe 1 moved in Michigan to quash the subpoena or obtain a protective order; Weebly disclosed Doe 1’s identity before the Michigan ruling.
- Michigan trial court adopted a Dendrite-like approach, asserting defamatory per se lacked First Amendment protection and denying quash; court stayed ruling pending appeal.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals held Michigan law adequately protects anonymity when coupled with protective orders and summary disposition, reversed, and remanded to consider a protective order; it declined to adopt Dendrite wholesale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michigan discovery rules adequately protect anonymity | Cooley argues Michigan rules sufficiently protect First Amendment rights. | Doe 1 argues Michigan law insufficiently protects anonymity and should adopt foreign standards. | No; Michigan rules adequately protect anonymity when properly applied. |
| Whether Michigan should adopt Dendrite/Cahill or a modified standard | Cooley contends Dendrite/Cahill best balance rights. | Doe 1 urges adoption of those foreign standards to protect anonymity. | Michigan adopts a modified Dendrite standard to balance interests. |
| Role of protective orders and summary disposition in the process | Cooley argues protective orders tested after identity disclosure still workable. | Doe 1 argues protective orders unnecessary if identity already known. | Protective orders and summary disposition can protect First Amendment rights on remand. |
| Whether the trial court erred by applying foreign law | Cooley contends foreign-law approach improperly framed the analysis. | Doe 1 argues foreign-law standards guided protective relief. | Trial court abused discretion by adopting foreign standards; remand for Michigan-law application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dendrite Int’l, Inc v Doe, 342 NJ Super 134, 775 A2d 756 (2001) (N.J. Super. 2001) (four-part test for identifying anonymous speakers; notice and prima facie pleading requirements; protects anonymity)
- Doe No 1 v Cahill, 884 A2d 451 (Del. 2005) (Del. 2005) (adopts partial Dendrite principles; require notice and summary-judgment threshold; balance test)
- In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2011) (9th Cir. 2011) (federal approach recognizing First Amendment protections in anonymous speech on the Internet)
- Bloomfield Charter Twp v Oakland Co Clerk, 253 Mich App 1, 654 NW2d 610 (2002) (Mich. App. 2002) (protective orders may protect First Amendment rights; later overruled on other grounds)