ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER JOHN DOE 1'S PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO CLOUDFLARE, INC. ISSUED FOR CASE PENDING IN FOREIGN JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP SEC.2029.600 AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
This order adopts the view that a basic issue of internet authorship is an issue of "first impression" under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which cannot be correct, and awards sanctions against a recommendation not to on the questionable assumption that an anonymous user who created a controversial forum never once posted on it, and is thus protected by Section 230.
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 150 Post Street, Suite 520 San Francisco, CA g4to8
*" KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD
o oe SN DN A Se WD YO e&
Ny Ww NH HN VN | FF FF FE KF FEO EF ESE OOO Sle
KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
Karl S. Kronenberger (CA Bar No. 226112)
Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (CA Bar No. 222187)
Ruben Pefia (CA Bar No. 328106)
150 Post Street, Suite 520
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 955-1155
Facsimile: (415) 955-1158
karl@KRInternetLaw.com
jeff@KRInternetLaw.com
ruben@KRiInternetLaw.com
Attorneys for Petitioner John Doe
San Francisco County ie ae,
SEP 30 2074
ET
— Depuly OBI
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
JOHN DOE 1, an individual,
Petitioner,
Vv.
CLOUDFLARE, INC.,
Respondent.
PATRICK S. TOMLINSON,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
| JOHN DOES 1-60, NAMES UNKNOWN,
Defendants.
Case No. CPF-21-517455
Case No. CPF-21-517455
monomat
[P. | ORDER GRANTING
PETITIONER JOHN DOE 1’S
PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO
CLOUDFLARE, INC. ISSUED FOR
CASE PENDING IN FOREIGN
JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP
§2029.600 AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS
In re out-of-state action:
Patrick S. Tomlinson v. John Does 1-60,
Names Unknown, Case No. 2021CV000500
State of Wisconsin Circuit Court,
Milwaukee County
Filed by John Doe 1
Date: September 30, 2021
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Ctrm.: 302
Before: The Hon. Ethan P. Schulman
[PROP] ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENAPage 2 150 Post Street, Suite 520 San Francisco, CA 94108
> KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD
Oo fe NF DN ND Fe WH WN
NB NO DR RD DRO eet
poe,
The Court, having reviewed and considered Petitioner John Doe’s motion to quash subpoena
issued to Cloudflare, Inc., the memorandum of points and authorities and declarations in support
thereof, the other related papers and pleadings on file herein, and the arguments of counsel presented
at the hearing, and with good cause appearing therefor:
The attached report and recommendation of the judge pro tem is adopted in part. For the
reasons ably and thoughtfully discussed in the report, Petitioner John Doe’s motion to quash
subpoena issued to Cloudfare, Inc. is granted. (See also in re Rule 45 Subpoenas Issued to Google
LIC and LinkedIn Corporation Dated July 23, 2020 (N.D. Cal. 2020) 337 F.R.D. 639, 649-651
[granting anonymous blogger’s motion to quash subpoenas issued to web-based e-mail provider and
professional networking website that sought information concerning blogger’s identity and contact
information where plaintiff company failed to produce competent evidence supporting prima facie
case of defamation].)
Petitioner’s request for a mandatory award of sanctions pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §
1987.2(c) is granted in the amount of $23,739.25 in attorneys’ fees and costs, which the Court finds
is a reasonable and well-documented amount. (See Roe v Halbig (2016) 29 Cal.App.5th 286, 306,
309 [anonymous blogger who filed motion to quash subpoena issued to online service provider,
which sought to reveal blogger’s identity for purposes of out-of-state defamation action, was entitled
to attorneys’ fees as a prevailing party under § 1987.2(c) where investigator voluntarily dismissed
subpoena].)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Legh 2,01 Lion Yi
v The Hon. Ethan P. Schulman
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Case No, CPF-21-517455 1 ppRer] ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENAPage 3 EXHIBIT APage 4 aM
JOHN DOE 1 VS. CLOUDFARE, INC.
Case No. CPF-21-517455
Initial Hearing Date: June 29. 2021
Dept. 302 Hearing Date: September 23, 2021
DOE 1 'S PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO CLOUDFLARE, INC. ISSUED FOR
CASE PENDING IN FOREIGN JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP§ 2029.600 AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS.
Introduction:
The underlying foreign jurisdiction action is brought in Wisconsin by
Patrick Tomlinson against multiple Doe defendants seeking damages for
defamation and harassment. Tomlinson has not been able to identify the true
identities of any of the Does he sued in his home state. Respondent Cloudfare,
Inc. is a website operator in California which hosts a forum titled “OnA Forums”.
The forum was created anonymously by Doe 1. Does 2-60 sued in the Wisconsin
action have anonymously posted and published defamatory statements Plaintiff
seeks to learn the identity of Doe 1 to depose him to learn the identities of Does 2-
60. Doe 1 seeks in this Petition to Quash to invoke the constitutional and privacy
protections of the Communications Decency Act, 47 USC§ 230 and Krinsky v.
—Doe 6, 159 Cal. App 4th 1154 (2008).
Petitioners Position in Support of Petition:
The decision to remain anonymous is an aspect of freedom of speech
protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Speech on the internet
is also accorded First Amendment protection. Through the use of chat rooms any
person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates
farther than it could from any soapbox. Through Web pages, mail exploders, and
newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphieteer."
1Page 5 Freedom of speech has its limits. When vigorous criticism descends into
defamation constitutional protection is no longer available. Targets of online
aspersions may seek redress by filing a lawsuit against their unknown detractors.
However a defamation plaintiff cannot invoke legal process to identity an
anonymous speaker by filing an unsupported complaint. When a plaintiff files a
complaint and seeks to use a subpoena to compel a website host or ISP to identify
an anonymous defendant, the defendant may then assert his or her First
Amendment right to speak anonymously through an application for a protective
order or, as here, a motion to quash the subpoena.
Plaintiff must satisfy two requirements to overcome a defendant's
constitutional right to preserve his or her anonymity. First, if the defendant has
not received notice of the attempt to lift the shield of anonymity, the plaintiff must
make reasonable efforts to provide such notice. Second, the plaintiff must make a
prima-facie showing that a case for defamation exists' by setting forth evidence
that a libelous statement has been made. ~
The required quantum of evidence needed to satisfy this second element is
that which will support a ruling in favor of a plaintiff if no controverting evidence
is presented. In any action predicated on anonymous speech theory the plaintiff
should not be able to discover the speaker's identity without showing the speech in
question is actionable.
Tomlinson has not and cannot overcome Petitioner's First Amendment right
to anonymity because Tomlinson has not and cannot satisfy the second Krinsky
requirement-i.e., Tomlinson does not set forth evidence supporting any claim
against Petitioner.Page 6 All Tomlinson's claims against Petitioner in the Wisconsin Action are based
on the Statements published on OnA Forums. All Statements were authored and
published by third-party users of OnA Forums, not by Petitioner.
Petitioner did not author, edit, contribute to, or publish the third-party
Statements except in his role as the operator of OnA Forums. Because Tomlinson
seeks to treat Petitioner as the author or publisher of the Statements in the
Wisconsin Action his claims are barred by the CDA.
Similarly, Tomlinson cannot come forth with any evidence Petitioner acted
with actual malice, given that Petitioner did not publish any of the Statements.
_ Because Petitioner did not author or publish the Statements, Tomlinson cannot
substantiate his defamation claim against Petitioner, and the Court should quash
the Subpoena.
Hearing Officer’s Request For Further Briefing to Identify Doe 1 Specific
Defamatory Statements
Following the initial hearing on June 29, 2021 in furtherance of the
“Krinsky” criteria for discovery of anonymous internet postings the undersigned
issued the following request for further briefing by Tomlinson.
“The hearing on the above titled Petition was held before me on June 29,
2021 in Department 302/Discovery and was continued for further hearing
following issuance of a report and recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge.
Required for preparation of said recommendation is second further briefing from
Patrick Tomlinson (hereinafter “Tomlinson”) as follows:
Krinsky vs. Doe 6, 159, (2008) Cal. App .4** 1154 (“Krinsky”) established
the evidentiary standard for compelling identification of an anonymous poster on
an internet web site necessary for overruling a poster’s constitutional right of
anonymity. The Krinsky standard is "When there is a factual and legal basis for
believing libel may have occurred, the writer's message will not be protected by
3Page 7 the First Amendment." The plaintiff must "establish that its action can withstand
a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ...
{and] produce sufficient evidence supporting each element of its cause of action.
ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7, (2017) 13 Cal. App. 5th 603 later held “plaintiff
seeking compulsory disclosure of an allegedly libelous speaker's identity must
state a legally sufficient cause of action against the defendant and must make a
prima-facie showing of the elements of that cause of action.”
The Court is unable from Tomlinson’s evidentiary submissions to date to
discern Does 1’s specific actionable libel language on which he relies. Noted is
Tomlinson’s Wisconsin complaint does not set forth libel specifics as to that
defendant. ;
The Court offers Tomlinson a further opportunity to provide the Court
with unambiguous Krinsky evidentiary compliance, He is directed on or prior to
August 27, 2021 to serve and file a supplemental pleading, courtesy copy to the
undersigned at sbs@sbslawsf.com, setting forth the cause-of-action specificity
with citations to the Petition’s evidentiary record.
Tomlinson’s Position in Opposition to Petition and in Response to Request
for Specific Evidence
The Court requested additional briefing on Plaintiff's prima-facie case
requirement as it relates to Petitioner's role in Plaintiffs lawsuit involving
anonymous speech under Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal. App. 4th 1154. Specifically,
the Court requested evidentiary proof with citations to the evidentiary record to
support each element of Plaintiffs libel claim.
Krinsky requires a Plaintiff to set-forth evidence to support each element of
a cause of action (e.g., libel) before compelling the disclosure of the identity of an
anonymous author of speech. Once that showing is made, Plaintiff is authorized to
pursue discovery through relévant information likely to lead to admissible
evidence, including the name and identity of all witnessés with information
4Page 8 relevant to Plaintiffs claim.
Plaintiff has met Krinsky requirements. Libel requires "(1) a false
statement; (2) communicated by speech, conduct or in writing to a person other
than the one defamed; and (3) the communication is unprivileged and tends to
harm one's reputation, lowering him or her in the estimation of the community or
deterring third persons from associating or dealing with him or her.” A statement
is defamatory per se if it imputes criminal conduct to a Plaintiff.
Here, the evidence in the record recites defamatory publication on
Petitioner's website: "Patrick Tomlinson is a pedophile and a child rapist. He
verbally and physically abused his ex-wife Adrienne. These are facts, plain and
simple ... Not a single instance of me calling Pat a pedophile has been a Joke."
Wisconsin law finds accusations of pedophilia to be actionable per se and
not subject to any applicable First Amendment privilege even they are made in
public or quasi-public proceedings. Rape is a crime in Wisconsin and accusations
of criminal conduct constitute defamation per se. Consequently, Plaintiff has pled
a cause of action for libel and supported each element of his claim with evidence
in the record demonstrating that the statements were published, (2) false, and (3)
carry a defamatory meaning. -
To the extent discovery reveals Petitioner did not publish the above
defamatory statements, Plaintiff must still conduct discovery on Petitioner to find
out who did. Doe | identity is essential to plaintiff's prosecution of his Wisconsin
claim.
To obtain the identity of the author of the above statement, Plaintiff must
take two steps. First, he has to learn the identity of Petitioner, Doe 1, as the
website owner or operator. This is because the subpoenaed entity, Cloudflare, Inc.,
5Page 9 cannot tell Plaintiff who posted the specific defamatory statements on Petitioner's
website; Cloudflare can only identify the owner and operator of the website.
However, Petitioner as owner and operator of the website where the defamatory
statements were published can identify the writers of the defamatory statements.
No other party can produce the information necessary to prosecute Plaintiff's valid
defamation claim.
The right to conduct discovery includes an entitlement to learn the identity
and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. A separate
compulsory ‘balancing test’ need not be applied in a case where the plaintiff has
already demonstrated a prima facie case of defamation. Since Plaintiff has already
satisfied his burden of showing that the false accusations of rape and pedophilia
are actionable, he can pursue discovery relevant to those claims without being
required to make a separate showing against Petitioner.
Petitioner enjoys sufficient protection under the law to assuage his concerns
if discovery reveals he did not author the actionable statements. If Petitioner did
not author the above statement he is protected from being treated as the publisher
of content authored by others under Section 230 of the Communications Decency
Act and escapes.
Similarly, if Petitioner did not author the actionable statements he is not
entitled to anonymity under Krinsky because Krinsky only protects authors of
anonymous speech from being unmasked for their anonymous. Krinsky did not
hold Plaintiffs must make a prime facie case against both the author of statements
and the website owner or operator where defamatory speech is published. Nor did
Krinsky hold that website owners have a right to remain anonymous for discovery
purposes.Page 10 VU LS)
Merely running a website does not constitute speech for defamation
purposes and does not implicate Krinsky protections for website operators.
Consequently, to the extent discovery reveals Petitioner did not publish the above
defamatory statements Plaintiff may still conduct discovery on Petitioner to find
out who did. Petitioner will only be burdened with discovery like any other third-
party witness.
Admittedly, Plaintiff has not obtained a confession at this early juncture
from each anonymous defendants including Doe 1. The specific authorship for
each specific defamatory writing posted by Does 2-60 being the subject of
Plaintiff's discovery efforts. However, Plaintiff cannot be burdened with proving
his case twice, once without discovery and once again with it. To the extent
discovery reveals the owner of the website did not publish any of the defamatory
statements, Plaintiff may still conduct discovery on Petitioner to find out who did.
In essence, the Court has erroneously asked Plaintiff to apply the Krinsky
twice in two very different contexts: once as it relates to establishing certain
statements are defamatory (a burden Plaintiff has met above), and yet again to
prove that the website operator was the publisher of that speech (a burden not
articulated by Krinsky).
Analysis and Basis for Hearing Officer Recommendation
The undersigned has reviewed Tomlinson’s pleadings and submitting |
supporting evidence to determine if there is any evidence Doe 1 personally posted
defamatory statements on the Cloudfare platform and thereby met the Krinsky
criteria. The Hearing Officer’s factual finding is he has not met the Krinsky proof
of defamation requirement in his Wisconsin or California filings.Page 11 It is not disputed Doe 1 anonymously created the OnA Forum which
provided the communication vehicle facilitating defamation and harassment by
others.
Thus the question to be resolved is whether Communications Decency Act,
47 USC§ 230 applies to him. Neither party has cited a California opinion in
which that direct issue is addressed. It appears to be an issue of first impression.
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides “No provider or user of
an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any
information provided by another information content provider.” These provisions
have been interpreted to confer broad immunity against defamation liability for
those who use the Internet to publish information that originated from another
source.
In Barrett v. Rosenthal 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 55 (2006) the Supreme Court held,
“We granted review to decide whether section 230 confers immunity on
“distributors.” Because this case involves the liability of an individual rather than
a service provider, we asked the parties to address the definition of the statutory
term “user.” We also requested briefing on whether the immunity analysis is
affected if a user engages in active rather than passive conduct. We conclude that
section 230 prohibits “distributor” liability for Internet publications. We further
hold that section 230(c)(1) immunizes individual “users” of interactive computer
services, and that no practical or principled distinction can be drawn between
active and passive use.”
Doe 1 meets the definition of a “user” who has engaged in passive use of the
internet. As such and as harsh a result as it is for Tomlinson, the mandate of
section 230 must prevail in this case and the Petition to Quash granted.
8Page 12 Conclusion:
The Petition of John Doe 1 to quash the Cloudfare subpoena should be
granted. Based on the fact there is no case directly holding the creator of a forum
to be section 230 protected, the request for monetary sanctions should be denied.
Dated: September 17, 2021
Steven B. Stein
Discovery Hearing Officer
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
150 Post Street, Suite 520 San Francisco, CA g4to8
*" KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD
o oe SN DN A Se WD YO e&
Ny Ww NH HN VN | FF FF FE KF FEO EF ESE OOO Sle
KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
Karl S. Kronenberger (CA Bar No. 226112)
Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (CA Bar No. 222187)
Ruben Pefia (CA Bar No. 328106)
150 Post Street, Suite 520
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 955-1155
Facsimile: (415) 955-1158
karl@KRInternetLaw.com
jeff@KRInternetLaw.com
ruben@KRiInternetLaw.com
Attorneys for Petitioner John Doe
San Francisco County ie ae,
SEP 30 2074
ET
— Depuly OBI
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
JOHN DOE 1, an individual,
Petitioner,
Vv.
CLOUDFLARE, INC.,
Respondent.
PATRICK S. TOMLINSON,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
| JOHN DOES 1-60, NAMES UNKNOWN,
Defendants.
Case No. CPF-21-517455
Case No. CPF-21-517455
monomat
[P. | ORDER GRANTING
PETITIONER JOHN DOE 1’S
PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO
CLOUDFLARE, INC. ISSUED FOR
CASE PENDING IN FOREIGN
JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP
§2029.600 AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS
In re out-of-state action:
Patrick S. Tomlinson v. John Does 1-60,
Names Unknown, Case No. 2021CV000500
State of Wisconsin Circuit Court,
Milwaukee County
Filed by John Doe 1
Date: September 30, 2021
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Ctrm.: 302
Before: The Hon. Ethan P. Schulman
[PROP] ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
PDF Page 3
150 Post Street, Suite 520 San Francisco, CA 94108
> KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD
Oo fe NF DN ND Fe WH WN
NB NO DR RD DRO eet
poe,
The Court, having reviewed and considered Petitioner John Doe’s motion to quash subpoena
issued to Cloudflare, Inc., the memorandum of points and authorities and declarations in support
thereof, the other related papers and pleadings on file herein, and the arguments of counsel presented
at the hearing, and with good cause appearing therefor:
The attached report and recommendation of the judge pro tem is adopted in part. For the
reasons ably and thoughtfully discussed in the report, Petitioner John Doe’s motion to quash
subpoena issued to Cloudfare, Inc. is granted. (See also in re Rule 45 Subpoenas Issued to Google
LIC and LinkedIn Corporation Dated July 23, 2020 (N.D. Cal. 2020) 337 F.R.D. 639, 649-651
[granting anonymous blogger’s motion to quash subpoenas issued to web-based e-mail provider and
professional networking website that sought information concerning blogger’s identity and contact
information where plaintiff company failed to produce competent evidence supporting prima facie
case of defamation].)
Petitioner’s request for a mandatory award of sanctions pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §
1987.2(c) is granted in the amount of $23,739.25 in attorneys’ fees and costs, which the Court finds
is a reasonable and well-documented amount. (See Roe v Halbig (2016) 29 Cal.App.5th 286, 306,
309 [anonymous blogger who filed motion to quash subpoena issued to online service provider,
which sought to reveal blogger’s identity for purposes of out-of-state defamation action, was entitled
to attorneys’ fees as a prevailing party under § 1987.2(c) where investigator voluntarily dismissed
subpoena].)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Legh 2,01 Lion Yi
v The Hon. Ethan P. Schulman
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Case No, CPF-21-517455 1 ppRer] ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
PDF Page 4
EXHIBIT A
PDF Page 5
aM
JOHN DOE 1 VS. CLOUDFARE, INC.
Case No. CPF-21-517455
Initial Hearing Date: June 29. 2021
Dept. 302 Hearing Date: September 23, 2021
DOE 1 'S PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO CLOUDFLARE, INC. ISSUED FOR
CASE PENDING IN FOREIGN JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP§ 2029.600 AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS.
Introduction:
The underlying foreign jurisdiction action is brought in Wisconsin by
Patrick Tomlinson against multiple Doe defendants seeking damages for
defamation and harassment. Tomlinson has not been able to identify the true
identities of any of the Does he sued in his home state. Respondent Cloudfare,
Inc. is a website operator in California which hosts a forum titled “OnA Forums”.
The forum was created anonymously by Doe 1. Does 2-60 sued in the Wisconsin
action have anonymously posted and published defamatory statements Plaintiff
seeks to learn the identity of Doe 1 to depose him to learn the identities of Does 2-
60. Doe 1 seeks in this Petition to Quash to invoke the constitutional and privacy
protections of the Communications Decency Act, 47 USC§ 230 and Krinsky v.
—Doe 6, 159 Cal. App 4th 1154 (2008).
Petitioners Position in Support of Petition:
The decision to remain anonymous is an aspect of freedom of speech
protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Speech on the internet
is also accorded First Amendment protection. Through the use of chat rooms any
person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates
farther than it could from any soapbox. Through Web pages, mail exploders, and
newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphieteer."
1
PDF Page 6
Freedom of speech has its limits. When vigorous criticism descends into
defamation constitutional protection is no longer available. Targets of online
aspersions may seek redress by filing a lawsuit against their unknown detractors.
However a defamation plaintiff cannot invoke legal process to identity an
anonymous speaker by filing an unsupported complaint. When a plaintiff files a
complaint and seeks to use a subpoena to compel a website host or ISP to identify
an anonymous defendant, the defendant may then assert his or her First
Amendment right to speak anonymously through an application for a protective
order or, as here, a motion to quash the subpoena.
Plaintiff must satisfy two requirements to overcome a defendant's
constitutional right to preserve his or her anonymity. First, if the defendant has
not received notice of the attempt to lift the shield of anonymity, the plaintiff must
make reasonable efforts to provide such notice. Second, the plaintiff must make a
prima-facie showing that a case for defamation exists' by setting forth evidence
that a libelous statement has been made. ~
The required quantum of evidence needed to satisfy this second element is
that which will support a ruling in favor of a plaintiff if no controverting evidence
is presented. In any action predicated on anonymous speech theory the plaintiff
should not be able to discover the speaker's identity without showing the speech in
question is actionable.
Tomlinson has not and cannot overcome Petitioner's First Amendment right
to anonymity because Tomlinson has not and cannot satisfy the second Krinsky
requirement-i.e., Tomlinson does not set forth evidence supporting any claim
against Petitioner.
PDF Page 7
All Tomlinson's claims against Petitioner in the Wisconsin Action are based
on the Statements published on OnA Forums. All Statements were authored and
published by third-party users of OnA Forums, not by Petitioner.
Petitioner did not author, edit, contribute to, or publish the third-party
Statements except in his role as the operator of OnA Forums. Because Tomlinson
seeks to treat Petitioner as the author or publisher of the Statements in the
Wisconsin Action his claims are barred by the CDA.
Similarly, Tomlinson cannot come forth with any evidence Petitioner acted
with actual malice, given that Petitioner did not publish any of the Statements.
_ Because Petitioner did not author or publish the Statements, Tomlinson cannot
substantiate his defamation claim against Petitioner, and the Court should quash
the Subpoena.
Hearing Officer’s Request For Further Briefing to Identify Doe 1 Specific
Defamatory Statements
Following the initial hearing on June 29, 2021 in furtherance of the
“Krinsky” criteria for discovery of anonymous internet postings the undersigned
issued the following request for further briefing by Tomlinson.
“The hearing on the above titled Petition was held before me on June 29,
2021 in Department 302/Discovery and was continued for further hearing
following issuance of a report and recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge.
Required for preparation of said recommendation is second further briefing from
Patrick Tomlinson (hereinafter “Tomlinson”) as follows:
Krinsky vs. Doe 6, 159, (2008) Cal. App .4** 1154 (“Krinsky”) established
the evidentiary standard for compelling identification of an anonymous poster on
an internet web site necessary for overruling a poster’s constitutional right of
anonymity. The Krinsky standard is "When there is a factual and legal basis for
believing libel may have occurred, the writer's message will not be protected by
3
PDF Page 8
the First Amendment." The plaintiff must "establish that its action can withstand
a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ...
{and] produce sufficient evidence supporting each element of its cause of action.
ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7, (2017) 13 Cal. App. 5th 603 later held “plaintiff
seeking compulsory disclosure of an allegedly libelous speaker's identity must
state a legally sufficient cause of action against the defendant and must make a
prima-facie showing of the elements of that cause of action.”
The Court is unable from Tomlinson’s evidentiary submissions to date to
discern Does 1’s specific actionable libel language on which he relies. Noted is
Tomlinson’s Wisconsin complaint does not set forth libel specifics as to that
defendant. ;
The Court offers Tomlinson a further opportunity to provide the Court
with unambiguous Krinsky evidentiary compliance, He is directed on or prior to
August 27, 2021 to serve and file a supplemental pleading, courtesy copy to the
undersigned at sbs@sbslawsf.com, setting forth the cause-of-action specificity
with citations to the Petition’s evidentiary record.
Tomlinson’s Position in Opposition to Petition and in Response to Request
for Specific Evidence
The Court requested additional briefing on Plaintiff's prima-facie case
requirement as it relates to Petitioner's role in Plaintiffs lawsuit involving
anonymous speech under Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal. App. 4th 1154. Specifically,
the Court requested evidentiary proof with citations to the evidentiary record to
support each element of Plaintiffs libel claim.
Krinsky requires a Plaintiff to set-forth evidence to support each element of
a cause of action (e.g., libel) before compelling the disclosure of the identity of an
anonymous author of speech. Once that showing is made, Plaintiff is authorized to
pursue discovery through relévant information likely to lead to admissible
evidence, including the name and identity of all witnessés with information
4
PDF Page 9
relevant to Plaintiffs claim.
Plaintiff has met Krinsky requirements. Libel requires "(1) a false
statement; (2) communicated by speech, conduct or in writing to a person other
than the one defamed; and (3) the communication is unprivileged and tends to
harm one's reputation, lowering him or her in the estimation of the community or
deterring third persons from associating or dealing with him or her.” A statement
is defamatory per se if it imputes criminal conduct to a Plaintiff.
Here, the evidence in the record recites defamatory publication on
Petitioner's website: "Patrick Tomlinson is a pedophile and a child rapist. He
verbally and physically abused his ex-wife Adrienne. These are facts, plain and
simple ... Not a single instance of me calling Pat a pedophile has been a Joke."
Wisconsin law finds accusations of pedophilia to be actionable per se and
not subject to any applicable First Amendment privilege even they are made in
public or quasi-public proceedings. Rape is a crime in Wisconsin and accusations
of criminal conduct constitute defamation per se. Consequently, Plaintiff has pled
a cause of action for libel and supported each element of his claim with evidence
in the record demonstrating that the statements were published, (2) false, and (3)
carry a defamatory meaning. -
To the extent discovery reveals Petitioner did not publish the above
defamatory statements, Plaintiff must still conduct discovery on Petitioner to find
out who did. Doe | identity is essential to plaintiff's prosecution of his Wisconsin
claim.
To obtain the identity of the author of the above statement, Plaintiff must
take two steps. First, he has to learn the identity of Petitioner, Doe 1, as the
website owner or operator. This is because the subpoenaed entity, Cloudflare, Inc.,
5
PDF Page 10
cannot tell Plaintiff who posted the specific defamatory statements on Petitioner's
website; Cloudflare can only identify the owner and operator of the website.
However, Petitioner as owner and operator of the website where the defamatory
statements were published can identify the writers of the defamatory statements.
No other party can produce the information necessary to prosecute Plaintiff's valid
defamation claim.
The right to conduct discovery includes an entitlement to learn the identity
and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. A separate
compulsory ‘balancing test’ need not be applied in a case where the plaintiff has
already demonstrated a prima facie case of defamation. Since Plaintiff has already
satisfied his burden of showing that the false accusations of rape and pedophilia
are actionable, he can pursue discovery relevant to those claims without being
required to make a separate showing against Petitioner.
Petitioner enjoys sufficient protection under the law to assuage his concerns
if discovery reveals he did not author the actionable statements. If Petitioner did
not author the above statement he is protected from being treated as the publisher
of content authored by others under Section 230 of the Communications Decency
Act and escapes.
Similarly, if Petitioner did not author the actionable statements he is not
entitled to anonymity under Krinsky because Krinsky only protects authors of
anonymous speech from being unmasked for their anonymous. Krinsky did not
hold Plaintiffs must make a prime facie case against both the author of statements
and the website owner or operator where defamatory speech is published. Nor did
Krinsky hold that website owners have a right to remain anonymous for discovery
purposes.
PDF Page 11
VU LS)
Merely running a website does not constitute speech for defamation
purposes and does not implicate Krinsky protections for website operators.
Consequently, to the extent discovery reveals Petitioner did not publish the above
defamatory statements Plaintiff may still conduct discovery on Petitioner to find
out who did. Petitioner will only be burdened with discovery like any other third-
party witness.
Admittedly, Plaintiff has not obtained a confession at this early juncture
from each anonymous defendants including Doe 1. The specific authorship for
each specific defamatory writing posted by Does 2-60 being the subject of
Plaintiff's discovery efforts. However, Plaintiff cannot be burdened with proving
his case twice, once without discovery and once again with it. To the extent
discovery reveals the owner of the website did not publish any of the defamatory
statements, Plaintiff may still conduct discovery on Petitioner to find out who did.
In essence, the Court has erroneously asked Plaintiff to apply the Krinsky
twice in two very different contexts: once as it relates to establishing certain
statements are defamatory (a burden Plaintiff has met above), and yet again to
prove that the website operator was the publisher of that speech (a burden not
articulated by Krinsky).
Analysis and Basis for Hearing Officer Recommendation
The undersigned has reviewed Tomlinson’s pleadings and submitting |
supporting evidence to determine if there is any evidence Doe 1 personally posted
defamatory statements on the Cloudfare platform and thereby met the Krinsky
criteria. The Hearing Officer’s factual finding is he has not met the Krinsky proof
of defamation requirement in his Wisconsin or California filings.
PDF Page 12
It is not disputed Doe 1 anonymously created the OnA Forum which
provided the communication vehicle facilitating defamation and harassment by
others.
Thus the question to be resolved is whether Communications Decency Act,
47 USC§ 230 applies to him. Neither party has cited a California opinion in
which that direct issue is addressed. It appears to be an issue of first impression.
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides “No provider or user of
an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any
information provided by another information content provider.” These provisions
have been interpreted to confer broad immunity against defamation liability for
those who use the Internet to publish information that originated from another
source.
In Barrett v. Rosenthal 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 55 (2006) the Supreme Court held,
“We granted review to decide whether section 230 confers immunity on
“distributors.” Because this case involves the liability of an individual rather than
a service provider, we asked the parties to address the definition of the statutory
term “user.” We also requested briefing on whether the immunity analysis is
affected if a user engages in active rather than passive conduct. We conclude that
section 230 prohibits “distributor” liability for Internet publications. We further
hold that section 230(c)(1) immunizes individual “users” of interactive computer
services, and that no practical or principled distinction can be drawn between
active and passive use.”
Doe 1 meets the definition of a “user” who has engaged in passive use of the
internet. As such and as harsh a result as it is for Tomlinson, the mandate of
section 230 must prevail in this case and the Petition to Quash granted.
8
PDF Page 13
Conclusion:
The Petition of John Doe 1 to quash the Cloudfare subpoena should be
granted. Based on the fact there is no case directly holding the creator of a forum
to be section 230 protected, the request for monetary sanctions should be denied.
Dated: September 17, 2021
Steven B. Stein
Discovery Hearing Officer
Back to 
