Posts Tagged ‘bloggers and the law’

Blogosphere reacts to Seidel subpoena

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.

Vaccine lawyer subpoenas Kathleen Seidel

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).

Scruggs: blogs deny me fair local trial

In a motion to change venue, the famed tort lawyer’s defense attorneys complain about Mississippi-focused “web logs (blogs) that report, in excruciating detail, every event in the prosecution and defense of the Scruggs criminal case” and related proceedings (Folo, Feb. 12). Does this mean we nationally-focused blogs don’t count as excruciating?

P.S. Commenter “OBQuiet” adds, “Odd that his own frequent comments and leaks to the press didn’t deny his opponents a fair trial. How could that be?”

Best Buy: sorry for sending that nastygram

First the giant retail chain sent a nastygram to an improvisational troupe that staged an unannounced performance at one of its stores and then sold parody T-shirts that imitated the retailer’s graphics. Then it sent a nastygram to a blog that had reported on the incident. Then, as p.r. disaster loomed, it apologized for sending the nastygram — the second one, at least, the one to the blogger. (Laughing Squid, Dec. 12)(via Turkewitz).

Call me a patent troll? See you in court

Watch what you say about lawyers, a continuing feature: the blog Troll Tracker has been critical of firms that make a practice of buying up patent rights to sue on them. Now co-founder Ray Niro of the Chicago plaintiffs firm Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro is threatening to sue Troll Tracker for alleged infringement of a patent on a technique sometimes used in web graphics, JPEG decompression. (If a website posts graphics at all, there is a good chance that it is in similar violation of this asserted patent.) Niro also wants the anonymous blawger’s identity unmasked and is offering a bounty toward that end. (TrollTracker, Dec. 4; John Bringardner, “A Bounty of $5,000 to Name Troll Tracker”, IP Law & Business, Dec. 4; via Ambrogi, who appends an extensive list of blogs commenting on the story).

Daniel Solove’s The Future of Reputation

Daniel Solove’s solution to the potential problem of damning information on the Internet is to open up the libel laws and to remove the Communications Decency Act safe-harbor for site owners. As Amber Taylor points out in a provocative review, one could take this chain more seriously if Solove more directly considered the real-world consequences of such a rule, and the amount of true speech it would shut down because of the potential legal expense of defending speech in the absence of bright-line rules. Eric Turkewitz’s review finds his blogger identity trumping his plaintiffs’ attorney identity to also oppose the expanded litigation that Solove proposes. David Giacalone is more favorable, though also unwilling to endorse Solove’s policy prescriptions.

Criticizes BidZirk on his blog, and survives

Eric Goldman calls the case of BidZirk v. Smith, filed by a South Carolina eBay reseller against the blogger who’d criticized its services, “a flagship example of how a pernicious and misguided plaintiff with a thin skin can ruin a blogger’s life.” Maybe “ruin” is no longer the operative term, since a federal court has just thrown out the case. Among the court’s determinations: calling a company’s founder a “yes man” is opinion and not actionable as defamation (Oct. 28 and, before that, Nov. 21, 2006; decision (PDF)). More: Ron Coleman fingers as a culprit the “American Rule” (no shifting of fees) under which “there is for all practical purposes no downside to suing someone on the most preposterous of grounds and losing — hence making the bringing of meritless litigation a part of every large company’s toolkit for silencing criticism and destroying smaller competitors.”

Amanda Marcotte, as accurate as ever

Friend of Overlawyered Amber Taylor writes:

Pandagon:

I have my suspicions that when the Republicans talk up “tort reform” to stop “nuisance lawsuits”, they’re not exactly talking about stuff like this. [Short version: scientist posts negative reviews of a book on his blog, criticizing its new theory of developmental biology as having no basis in reality; the word “crackpot” was used. The author, a critic of “Darwinian orthodoxy,” sues.]

Right. That would be why the tort reform proponents at Overlawyered covered the story days before Marcotte got around to it. That coverage was even noted at the website Marcotte quoted. But why acknowledge facts when inaccurate smears are available?

Just so. Earlier Marcotte: Feb. 16, Feb. 2 and links therein.