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.
7 Comments
I’m hardly a big gun, but I blogged it here/
Thanks for your work on this.
I’m keeping a running list of blog comments at I Speak of Dreams. I was one of the 100 plus bloggers named in item 5 of the subpoena. While I write on autism and anti-vaccination foolery, I think I’ve exchanged a handful of e-mails with Ms. Seidel.
This is a random question, but can Seidel file a ethics complaint about this lawyer?
This subpoena seems truly egregious, and I am sure Mr. Shoemaker’s local bar would like to hear about it.
How would she do that? Is there any chance that something would be done?
I just had a thought. Mr Shoemaker wants to see all the correspondence from Kathleen’s blogroll. Mr Shoemaker has asked to see all the correspondence from Kathleen’s blogroll. Mr. Shoemaker’s email address is known. Perhaps in the interest of saving everyone time and copying expenses Mr. Shoemaker should be emailed copies of all the blogs that all the bloggers on Kathleen’s blogroll have ever produced?
Actually since Mr. Shoemaker has requested “Any and all documents (including emails, notes, memos, letters, etc.) pertaining communications (written or verbal) which have occurred between Kathleen Seidel or any individual or organization working for or with http://www.neurodiversity.com and any members, employees, or consultants of other advocacy groups , non-governmental organizations, concerned individuals, political action groups, profit or non-profit companies/organizations, including but not limited to…” That covers a lot more than just blogs.
In my simplistic non-lawyerly understanding, an “individual working with” neurodiversity.com would be any individual had ever gone to Kathleen’s site and worked with what she had provided there, that is had read any of what she had posted. Presumably anyone who’s blog has been linked to neurodiversity.com (or who links there) is by virtue of that link “working with” Kathleen. As I understand it, each comment in a blog is a separate “communication” and should be sent separately.
I would think that even this blog could be considered covered by the subpoena. I don’t know whether giving Mr. Shoemaker what he asks for is required, but I have been tought that giving people what the ask for is always considered polite.
If Mr. Shoemaker is asking for “any and all documents pertaining to communications which have occurred between any individual who has ever gone to Kathleen’s site and any concerned individual”, that includes a lot of material. If 100 bloggers have 100 blogs each, that is 10,000 blogs. If each blog has 100 comments, that is 1,000,000 “communications”.
I hope Mr. Shoemaker has a large inbox.
A very large inbox.
Reader/blogger Jake Young, who commented above, writes to add that he has had a chance to look up the bar ethics rules in Virginia, where Shoemaker practices. “They do have a clause relating to this sort of thing:
“RULE 4.4 Respect For Rights Of Third Persons
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or
use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.”
“Here are the rules if you would like to check it out (p. 74):
http://www.vsb.org/docs/rules-pc_2007-08pg.pdf
Walter, you certainly know the poor odds of actually getting that enforced. The lawyer will cough up some lame, obviously-fake claim of relevance and get off scot-free, as usual.
But it’s nice to have the proof of the crap going on.
We’ve been following the subpoena issued to Kathleen Seidel over at the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society. In an effort to shed light on these kinds of legal threats, we track subpoenas (and lawsuits) against bloggers in our legal threats database. Please let us know if you come across any developments that we might have missed.