An injunction is a court order that requires someone to do something or prevents them from doing something. There are a few different types of injunctions, but I'm only going to discuss the two that apply to defamation cases.
One of the websites I check often is California Anti-SLAPP Project ("CASP"). CASP was founded in 1991 and has been instrumental in shaping California's anti-SLAPP statute. To put this statement in perspective, California was the first state to enact a so-called anti-SLAPP statute. Now nearly thirty states have such a statute. CASP was also involved in advancing AB2433, a new civil discovery law, which is very protective of online speech.
The ex-head mistress of Oprah Winfrey's Leadership Academy for Girls sued Winfrey last month in Philadelphia for defamation, based on certain alleged comments made by Winfrey. For example, the complaint alleges that Winfrey said, "I thought she cared about the girls of South Africa." The implication being, according to the Complaint, that the ex-head mistress was not trustworthy.
Yesterday I wrote about the statute of limitations for an action for libel or slander, which is one year. But when does the clock start running, or in legal terms, when the does the action begin to accrue? For torts, the answer is generally when the injury occurred. But that's not always the case. In some situations, courts will apply the so-called "Discovery Rule." This rule holds that the statute of limitations will not begin to run on a cause of action until such time the injured party discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the defendant's alleged defamation.
The Canadian Supreme Court held that linking to third party content is not libel in Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (Sup. Ct. Aug. 29, 2008). For a detailed discussion of the case, read Jeffrey D. Neuburger's post at Mediashift.
Eric Goldman of the Technology Law Blog seems to think so and I agree. The Communications Decency Act was passed in 1996 and later was interpreted by courts to immunize internet service providers form torts committed by users of their systems. In specific, it says:
A lawyer being sued by a New York law firm for defamation made the unfortunate mistake of attempting to implead opposing counsel as a third-party defendant in the lawsuit. As a result, the attorney was sanctioned by the court in the sum of $14,000 for employing a "frivolous" tactic. For more about this story, read the Corporate Legal Times.
Lisa H. Miller writes in the Internet Defamation Law Blog about Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant # 1, 06-1590-cv (2nd Cir. 2008), a case which addresses the question: "Can a plaintiff sue anonymously in an internet defamation setting?" The answer is yes, as long as the plaintiff's need to remain anonymous outweighs the public's need for disclosure. While this decision isn't exactly ground-breaking (since the 9th Circuit already addressed the question of whether a litigant may sue anonymously in Does I through XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000)), it is instructive because the court listed a set of factors to consider determine whether plaintiff's desire for anonymity outweighs the public's need for disclosure. For example, "(f) whether defendant is prejudiced by allowing plaintiff to press claims anonymously." I mean, when wouldn't a defendant be prejudiced by a court allowing plaintiff to file anonymously?
I wrote a post not too long ago about "defamation of religion" and the United Nations. After reading Steven Groves' excellent article, "Why the U.S. Should Oppose "Defamation of Religions" Resolutions at the United Nations", I am firmly convinced that the First Amendment as we understand it today is in danger. It is well known that Supreme Court justices have increasingly relied upon international law to evaluate and interpret U.S. law. As a result, the U.S. must continue to oppose the United Nations' attempts to make the State the arbiter of religious beliefs. This is serious.
Internet defamation attorneys and bloggers listen up! A new law will take effect in California on January 1, 2009, which allows online speakers to obtain attorney's fees if they successfully oppose a subpoena to obtain their personally identifying information in California involving out-of-state litigation.
The purpose of an anti-SLAPP motion in California is to dispose of lawsuits at an early stage of litigation. The motion must be filed within 60 days of the filing of the complaint, unless a court expressly allows a late filing. CCP § 425.16(f). While courts generally have wide discretion to allow late filings, no court has squarely decided the issue--how long is too long? That is, until now. In Platypus wear, Inc. v. Goldberg (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 772, the court decided the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a party's request to file an anti-SLAPP after 60 days.
The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the defendant to file a late anti-SLAPP motion nearly two years after the initial complaint was filed. It reasoned that the purpose of the statute is to ensure prompt resolution of cases aimed at chilling speech. The court stated that the defendant failed to offer a "compelling explanation" or any "extenuating circumstances" for the delay. Also key to the court's decision was the fact that the defendant did not file the motion until after the parties had conducted substantial discovery. And since one of the chief reasons behind the anti-SLAPP statute is to protect defendants from being subjected to costly discovery, the court determined that the motion was simply untimely.
The lesson is clear hear: File an anti-SLAPP motion within the 60 day period. It's simply not worth the risk to wait whatever the reason.
Enter keywords:
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.
