Recently in Media Category
As a judge considers whether to impose sanctions on attorney Clifford Shoemaker for hitting investigative blogger Kathleen Seidel with an intimidating subpoena, one of Shoemaker's attorneys asks the court for more time "to gather the material I would need to show the Court the justification for the Subpoena and its scope," which prompts Eric Turkewitz to wonder (May 6): "Why is it necessary to look for justification for the subpoena after it was issued?" And: "Other than talking to Shoemaker, who must have already had justification before the subpoena was issued, why would it be necessary to interview any other witness? It's only Shoemaker's rationale that matters to the sanctions motion."
In another indication that heavy-handed pursuit of a blogger might not have worked out very well as a legal strategy, Shoemaker's own clients, the Sykes family, have now voluntarily dropped their vaccine-autism suit against Bayer, which was the basis for the subpoena (Seidel, Orac).
Perhaps-ominous sequel: Seidel points out in a new post that Shoemaker's legal papers accuse her of arguably tortious conduct in her comments on autism litigation, including interfering with "witnesses' professions, professional relationships, and economic opportunities", and that the witnesses in question in the Sykes suit, Dr. Mark Geier and David Geier, have previously pursued long and costly litigation against four scientists and the American Academy of Pediatrics over an article in Pediatrics which disputed the Geiers' findings. The suit -- which was eventually dismissed without prejudice as to the scientists, and dismissed with prejudice as to AAP -- contended that damages were owing because the article in question had cut into the Geiers' potential income as expert witnesses.
"Three years ago, Purina sent a cease-and-desist letter to Chow, Baby!, a Baltimore area pet supply shop and Web site owned by Robin McDonald, asserting that its use of the 'Chow, Baby!' name was likely to cause confusion with Purina's CHOW trademarks and would dilute the distinctive quality of those marks. ... According to the dictionary, 'chow' is defined as food, a meaning that dates back to 1860." (Carolyn Elefant, Legal Blog Watch, May 2). More from Ron Coleman:
But companies such as Purina are not interested in discussing the matter. Brand management isn't a seminar. They are interesting in executing and maintaining a policy of complete domination of not only their brand equity space, but a comfortable semiotic buffer all around that space to the full extent that they can get away with it. Judges simply do not award fees or otherwise penalize brand owners for overreaching under the Lanham Act, though the Act empowers them to do so (the exceptions are notable and hence reportable). For this reason it is worth it to Purina and companies like it -- it is a rational economic and corporate choice -- to litigate these cases at the small risk of actually getting to a final adverse judgment regarding a trademark they have no right to anyway, as weighed against the much higher possibility that the other side will surrender $10,000, $25,000 or even $100,000 worth of fees into the process -- dollars that are orders of magnitude more significant to the defendant (or declaratory judgment plaintiff) than for a corporation that probably has counsel on a retainer anyway.
An Arizona antiwar activist has been much criticized for selling a T-shirt with the slogan "Bush Lied, They Died" along with the names of the more than 4,000 U.S. servicemen killed in the war. Parents of a soldier killed in action in Iraq are suing, saying the use of their son's name has caused them emotional distress; they want class-action status on behalf of all the parents of other soldiers killed in action, amounting to $40 billion. The suit's Amended Complaint does little to advance the dignity of its cause with assertions like, "Most respectfully, this is a concept that even a mentally-challenged monkey could grasp." (Howard Wasserman, Prawfsblawg, May 5; Balko, Reason "Hit and Run", May 6; The Smoking Gun, Apr. 23).
"Kristen" from the Spitzer affair wants $10 million, saying the notorious video series photographed her when she was 17, not the requisite 18 -- it seems likely that she had a hand in this deception herself -- and now owes her $10 million for injury to her "business, reputation and good will". (Curt Anderson, "Spitzer call girl sues 'Girls Gone Wild' for $10 million", AP/Philly.com, Apr. 28; WSJ law blog, Apr. 29).
Updating a Feb. 28 post:
The Supreme Court of Georgia has said "no deal" to a team of Columbus lawyers representing a proposed class of people seeking to recover money they spent participating in a feature of the NBC hit show "Deal or No Deal."The suit filed in federal court had contended that the Lucky Case Game -- in which viewers, like the contestants on "Deal or No Deal," try to pick a lucky suitcase -- ran afoul of Georgia law because participants were charged 99 cents to play through their cell phones. The plaintiffs based their suit on a colonial-era Georgia statute that allows gamblers to recover their losses through lawsuits.
(Alyson M. Palmer, "Luck Runs Dry for 'Deal' Plaintiffs in Lawsuit Against NBC", Fulton County Daily Report, Apr. 22).
[Bumped on breaking news: A federal court in New Hampshire has quashed the subpoena and ordered attorney Clifford Shoemaker to show cause why he should not be subjected to sanctions. Also: Orac. Earlier Monday post follows:]
Autism blogger Kathleen Seidel reports that the online free speech project at Public Citizen has agreed to provide her with legal assistance in responding to vaccine lawyer Clifford Shoemaker's subpoena (see earlier coverage here, here, and here). One way to read this is as a fairly devastating commentary on just how weak Shoemaker's position is, since there is ordinarily no more potent public presence on behalf of the plaintiff's side in pharmaceutical litigation than Public Citizen. Seidel also has discovered that as a Shoemaker target she is in distinguished company:
I learned that on March 26, 2008 -- the same afternoon that I was greeted at my doorstep with a demand for access to virtually the entire documentary record of my intellectual and financial life over the past four years -- Dr. Marie McCormick, Sumner and Esther Feldberg Professor of Maternal and Child Health at the Harvard School of Public Health, and Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, was subjected to a similar experience at her Massachusetts home.From 2001 to 2004, Dr. McCormick chaired the Immunization Safety Review Committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM), charged with analyzing and reporting on data regarding the safety of vaccination practices. ...As a result of her voluntary work on the committee, Dr. McCormick has found herself a frequent target of suspicion by plaintiffs, their attorneys and advocates, and opponents of vaccines, who disagree with its conclusions, and whose legal and political positions are not supported by its reports.
McCormick's lawyers are likewise seeking to quash the subpoena. Much more here (& Beck & Herrmann, Orac, Pharmalot).
After much discussion in the blogosphere this story would seem more than ready to cross over into mainstream-press coverage; here's a local columnist who says he left three messages with attorney Clifford Shoemaker but got no response (Dave Brooks, "What a Web of actional links we can weave", Nashua Telegraph, Apr. 9)(via Liz Ditz/I Speak of Dreams' ongoing list monitoring coverage).
Update 5:30 p.m.: Here's James Taranto at WSJ Best of the Web, giving just the shove the story may need:
It might behoove the ACLU, or some organization devoted to civil liberties, to devote some resources to figuring out how to defend speech that is inconvenient to plaintiffs lawyers.
We told you it was dangerous to criticize Ottawa lawyer and "human rights" commission enthusiast Richard Warman, and we were right: he's now sued four leading conservative bloggers in Canada and one website, Ezra Levant, Jonathan Kay/National Post, Kate McMillan/Small Dead Animals, Kathy Shaidle/Five Feet of Fury, and Free Dominion. Lawsuit target Ezra Levant has details, as does Michelle Malkin, not yet a target perhaps because she is American.
In related news, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has decided not to pursue a complaint against Maclean's, the country's best-known magazine, for publishing a book excerpt by well-known writer Mark Steyn. (Press release via Small Dead Animals, SteynOnline).
...can file defamation suits too. ("Perez Hilton Calls Blogger A Defamer", The Smoking Gun; Jossip; WSJ law blog).
"The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended a $25,000 fine, a 30-day suspension without pay and a public censure for state court Judge Ernest B. Murphy for sending improper letters to Boston Herald publisher Patrick J. Purcell that demanded settlement of Murphy's libel lawsuit against the newspaper." (Sheri Qualters, "Suspension, Fine Recommended for Boston Judge Who Sent Improper Letters to Newspaper", National Law Journal, Apr. 2). For more on Judge Murphy's "fascinatingly repellent" letters and their "'Surrender, Dorothy' flavor", see Dec. 23 and Dec. 8, 2005.
We've updated our post below, but it's worth noting separately that some of the biggest guns in the blogging world, such as Glenn Reynolds, P.Z. Myers/Pharyngula (where we get attacked by a couple of commenters), and Orac/Respectful Insolence, have weighed in over the last 24 hours on the punishingly broad subpoena that vaccine lawyer Clifford Shoemaker has aimed at autism blogger Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity. Others: PalMD, Pure Pedantry, I Speak of Dreams, Law and More, Open Records, Matt Johnston, and my own cross-post at Point of Law. And: Family Voyage, Jack's NewsWatch, Autism Street, Eric Turkewitz/New York Personal Injury Law Blog, Elf M. Sternberg, PopeHat, PooFlingers, Women's Bioethics Blog, Asperger Square 8, Rettdevil's Rants, and longer list at Liz Ditz/I Speak of Dreams. Plus: Carolyn Elefant @ Legal Blog Watch.
P.S. One lawyer friend wrote to say "I dunno, it's only a subpoena", to which I replied that I was reminded of my gun-enthusiast friends who say things like, "it's only a semi-automatic".
P.P.S. More press coverage here.
I've often linked in the past to the work of New Hampshire blogger Kathleen Seidel, whose weblog Neurodiversity presents a fearless, systematically researched, and frequently brilliant ongoing critique of autism vaccine litigation. A prominent plaintiff's lawyer in that litigation, Clifford Shoemaker of Vienna, Virginia, has just hit Seidel with an astoundingly broad and sweeping subpoena (PDF) demanding a wide range of documents and records relating to her publication of the blog. Seidel has been sharply critical of Shoemaker's litigation, and indeed the subpoena arrived only hours after she posted a new Mar. 24 entry, "The Commerce in Causation", critical of his legal efforts.
The subpoena contains no indication that Seidel herself is accused of defaming anyone or violating any other legal rights of any party. Instead it seems she is being dragged in as a third-party witness in Shoemaker's suit on behalf of his clients, Rev. Lisa Sykes and Seth Sykes, against vaccine maker Bayer. Although Seidel has been a remarkably diligent blogger on autism-vaccine litigation, I can find no indication that she is in possession of specialized knowledge that Shoemaker would not be able to obtain for his clients through more ordinary means.
Instead, the first phrase that occurred to me on looking through the subpoena was "fishing expedition", and the second was "intimidation". Several clauses indicate that Shoemaker is hoping to turn up evidence that Seidel has accepted support from the federal government, or from vaccine makers, which she says she hasn't. Also among the documents demanded: Seidel's correspondence with other bloggers. As she puts it in her response:
The subpoena commands production of "all documents pertaining to the setup, financing, running, research, maintaining the website http://www.neurodiversity.com" - including but not limited to material mentioning the plaintiffs - and the names of all persons "helping, paying or facilitating in any fashion" my endeavors. The subpoena demands bank statements, cancelled checks, donation records, tax returns, Freedom of Information Act requests, LexisNexis® and PACER usage records. The subpoena demands copies of all of my communications concerning any issue which is included on my website, including communications with representatives of the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, advocacy groups, non-governmental organizations, political action groups, profit or non-profit entities, journals, editorial boards, scientific boards, academic boards, medical licensing boards, any "religious groups (Muslim or otherwise), or individuals with religious affiliations," and any other "concerned individuals."...Plaintiffs and their counsel seek not only to rummage through records that they suspect pertain to themselves, but also through my family's bank records, tax returns, autism-related medical and educational records, and every communication concerning all of the issues to which I have devoted my attention and energy in recent years.
Seidel has responded with a self-drafted motion to quash the subpoena, and expresses confidence that a judge will rule in her favor, and perhaps go so far as to agree with her contention that it constitutes sanctionable abuse. Should the subpoena somehow be upheld and its onerous demands enforced, it could signal chilly legal times ahead for bloggers who expose lawyers and their litigation to critical scrutiny (& welcome Instapundit, Pure Pedantry, P.Z. Myers, I Speak of Dreams, Law and More, Open Records, Matt Johnston readers. And Orac/Respectful Insolence, with what he terms an "important rant". More reactions here and here).
As an online phenomenon, JuicyCampus.com sounds more than a little familiar to those who followed the AutoAdmit/XOXOXTH controversy: message boards open to bathroom-graffiti anonymous posts about named fellow students. The difference this time is that the attorneys general of New Jersey and Connecticut have jumped in with legal action apparently premised on the unusual, and expansible, legal theory that the site violates consumer fraud statutes by not enforcing its own announced ground rules on posting, or at least principles that it "suggests" it will follow. (ABA Journal and again; Volokh).
"None of the estimated $400 million that the RIAA received in settlements with Napster, KaZaA, and Bolt over allegations of copyright infringement has gone to the artists whose copyrights were allegedly infringed. Now the artists are considering suing the RIAA." (Consumerist, Mar. 17; David Utter, WebProNews, Feb. 29).
Reader Jim Finkel writes:
Having followed the RIAA lawsuits for a while, I found this most amusing. Even though I am not a lawyer, perhaps if the funds are NOT disbursed soon, there may be a bigger fraud suit. As the RIAA has ostensibly been collecting the monies for the artists, if the RIAA does not disgorge the funds, then they have been litigating under false pretenses. If RIAA expenses are so high that they have nothing left for the artists, then the artists may have grounds to countersue the RIAA for annoying the potential customers with so many frivolous lawsuits that the record business was destroyed, by the RIAA. That might be the ultimate irony.
By the way, for suggesting this suit, I would of course request my portion of the proceeds.
Earlier coverage here.
Updating our Mar. 29, 2006 post: "Computer store owner Charles Smith has won a two-year legal battle with Wal-Mart, which has demanded he stop making and selling T-shirts and other items with slogans such as 'Wal-ocaust' and 'Wal-Qaeda.' U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. found that Smith's products qualified as protected noncommercial speech because his goal was to criticize Wal-Mart, not to make a profit from his products. The judge noted that Smith had sold only 62 T-shirts, including 15 to one of Wal-Mart's outside law firms." (Janet L. Conley, "Parody of Wal-Mart Trumps Its Trademark", Fulton County Daily Report, Mar. 26; Likelihood of Confusion, Mar. 22; Randazza, Mar. 23).
It "won't accept any more filings" from the embattled anti-videogame attorney "without the signature of another Florida Bar member." (DBR). Relatedly, Above the Law is retiring Thompson to a Hall of Fame in which he will be ineligible for further naming as ATL's Lawyer of the Day, because it just isn't fair to other lawyers who do outlandish things to let Thompson win so often.
You guessed it: it's the Jack Thompson Florida folly discussed here a couple of weeks ago (Bonnie Goldstein, Slate, Mar. 7). Bonus: the court includes a reference to the precedents set by Montgomery Blair Sibley in his struggles with the Florida bar (earlier). P.S. More from Dennis McCauley at GamePolitics who exchanges emails with Thompson regarding his use of a photo of burned-out Hiroshima to presage what may "figuratively" happen to the Florida bar if he gets sanctioned.
