Craigslist is a classified advertisements website with one section of its site dedicated to housing. With a simple design that has not been significantly updated since its creation, craiglist allows users to post (among other things) apartment rental listings. In order to make the material on craigslist more user-friendly, PadMapper takes the information from craigslist's apartment listings and plots these on an easily searchable map, adding search filters. 3taps is a startup committed to collecting and distributing public data, which partnered with PadMapper to assist with its access to the apartment information on craigslist.

In response to their use of craigslist's listings, craigslist sent PadMapper a cease and desist letter. After PadMapper refused to comply, craigslist filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 20, 2012, against PadMapper and 3Taps. In its complaint, craigslist asserted ten claims for relief, including contract (asserting breaches of craigslist's terms of use), copyright, and trademark/unfair competition claims.

3taps answered the complaint on September 24 and filed a counterclaim, asserting claims of antitrust violations, unfair competition, and interference with economic advantage. Overall, 3taps' defense and counterclaims focused on the premise that the facts drawn from craigslist's website are not craigslist's property, but in public domain, and that craigslist has maintained an unlawful monopoly through sham lawsuits, copyright misuse, improperly restrictive terms of use, and "ghosting." In its answer on October 30, PadMapper raised similar counterclaims alleging anticompetitive conduct by craigslist.

Craigslist filed a first amended complaint on November 20, 2012. In this amended complaint, craigslist added seven additional claims, for a total of 17. The claims were as follows (with new claims in italics)

1. Trespass: Defendants have gained unlawful access to and interfered with craigslist's computer system, servers, and network.
2. Breach of Contract: Defendants affirmatively accepted and agreed to be bound by the Terms of Use, which they willfully, repeatedly and systematically breached by accessing the craiglist website to copy and distribute the content posted therein.
3. Misappropriation: As competitors with craigslist, Defendants wrongfully accessed craigslist's website and computer systems to make craigslist's content available to their customers, constituting free-riding on craigslist's substantial investment of time, effort, and expense.
4. Copyright Infringement: Defendants reproduced and distributed the copyrighted material on the craigslist website without authorization from the copyright holder, craigslist.
5. Contributory Copyright Infringement (against 3taps): 3taps provides its users with copies and derivative works of craigslist's copyrighted works without craigslist's consent, and knowingly permits its users to copy, reproduce, and prepare derivative works from the copyrighted works.
6. Federal Trademark Infringement: Defendants' unauthorized use of the CRAIGSLIST mark in interstate commerce in connection with the sale or advertising of goods is likely to cause consumer confusion.
7. Federal False Designation of Origin: Defendants' unauthorized use of the CRAIGSLIST mark is likely to create the false and misleading impression that Defendants' products or services are provided or sponsored by craigslist.
8. Federal Dilution of a Famous Mark (against 3taps): CRAIGSLIST is a famous and distinctive mark, and 3taps' use of the mark is likely to cause dilution by blurring, particularly depleting the strength of the mark by impairing its distinctiveness.
9. Federal Cyberpiracy Prevention (against 3taps): 3taps' use of CRAIGGERS in the craiggers.com domain is confusingly similar to and dilutive of the famous, registered CRAIGSLIST mark.
10. California Trademark Infringement: Defendants' unauthorized use of the CRAIGSLIST mark in connection with the sale or advertising of goods/services in California is likely to cause confusion as to the source and/or sponsorship of the goods/services.
11. Common Law Trademark Infringement: Defendants' unauthorized use of the CRAIGSLIST mark is likely to cause confusion as to the source and/or sponsorship of the goods/services.
12. California Unfair Competition: Defendants have engaged in unfair business practices, injuring craigslist's business, reputation, and trademarks.
13. Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: Defendants accessed craigslist's computers and servers without authorization or in excess of authorization and obtained valuable information in transactions involving interstate or foreign communications.
14. California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act: Defendants accessed and copied data from craigslist's computer systems and servers without authorization.
15. Aiding and Abetting Trespass (against 3taps): 3taps has encouraged and facilitated access to craigslist's computers by supporting the collection, transfer, and storage of craigslist's content.
16. Aiding and Abetting Misappropriation (against 3taps): 3taps has knowledge that the time-sensitive "scraped" craigslist content they provide PadMapper is to compete with craigslist, therefore aiding PadMapper's misappropriation.
17. Accounting: As Defendants have benefited financially as a result of their misconduct at craigslist's expense, craigslist is entitled to a full accounting to determine the amount of money due to craigslist.

In response, PadMapper and 3taps amended their counterclaims on December 21. PadMapper updated its counterclaims to include (attempted) illegal maintenance of a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Act and California unfair business practices, and to seek declaratory relief for noninfringement of craigslist's copyrights. 3taps alleged similar counterclaims, including multiple monopoly and contract claims under the Sherman Act, California unfair competition, and interference with economic advantage.

PadMapper and 3taps also filed motions to dismiss on December 21, 2012. PadMapper, which first filed a motion to dismiss on October 30, 2012, amended this motion to dismiss craigslist's claims for trespass (claim 1), breach of contract (2), federal trademark infringement (6), federal false designation of origin (7), California trademark infringement (10), and common law trademark infringement (11). PadMapper argued that the Copyright Act preempts the breach of contract claim and that craigslist failed to state a trespass claim against PadMapper. PadMapper also argued that the four trademark claims are precluded under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox Film, which narrowed the scope of the Lanham Act so not to cover claims where the core issue is a copyright claim, primarily the improper reproduction of copyrighted material.

3taps moved to dismiss craigslist's claims of copyright infringement (claim 4), contributory copyright infringement (5), violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (13), and California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (14). With respect to the copyright claims, 3taps argued that craigslist has no standing to assert copyright infringement of user-generated content and its asserted copyright registrations are invalid. 3taps also argued that the statutory elements of the CFAA and California statute could not be satisfied, as establishing unauthorized access requires proof of hacking which craigslist judicially admitted did not occur.

In an opposition filed on January 31, 2013, craigslist reasserted the sufficiency of its pleadings and the validity of its copyrights. PadMapper and 3taps replied in support of their respective motions to dismiss on February 13.

On February 8, 2013, noting the complexity of the lawsuit, craigslist filed a motion to bifurcate and stay Defendants' amended counterclaims pending resolution of craigslist's claims. Craigslist argued that the counterclaims would be made moot or significantly narrowed if craigslist prevailed on its claims, and consideration of the antitrust counterclaims in conjunction with craigslist's claims would increase the legal and factual complexity of the case, delaying the proceedings. PadMapper and 3taps both opposed this motion on March 1. The defendants argued that the claims at issue are intertwined and would not be rendered moot if craigslist prevails, such that bifurcation would be inappropriate. The defendants further argued that a decision on bifurcation would be premature, and a stay of discovery would result in prejudice. In a reply on March 15, craigslist maintained that resolving craigslist's claims would at least streamline the antitrust claims, while the balance of potential prejudice weighs heavily towards bifurcation. Craigslist also argued that the motion was not premature and the bifurcation should occur before the start of discovery.  

On April 29, 2013, Judge Charles Breyer issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, and granting craigslist's motion to bifurcate.  The district court denied 3taps' motion to dismiss the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act claims, noting that the defendant's continued access after clear statements regarding authorization in the cease and desist letters and terms of use sufficiently constitutes unauthorized access under these statutory provisions. The Court also denied PadMapper's motion to dismiss the trespass claim and the breach of contract claim, which it it ruled was not preempted by the Copyright Act. PadMapper's motion to dismiss the trademark claims was also denied, as the Court held that they were not precluded by Dastar. With respect to the copyright claims, the Court held that craigslist sufficiently established the originality of the compilation of the posts to warrant copyright protection, even in the individual posts themselves, and sufficiently registered copyright for this content.

However, the Court ruled that craigslist was the exclusive licensee of this content only from July 16, 2012 through August 8, 2012, during which period users were presented with a notice to click confirming craigslist's position as the exclusive licensee of the post. Outside of those weeks when the exclusive license confirmation statement was in use, the court found that craigslist could not sue for copyright infringement. Accordingly, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the copyright claims with respect to user-created posts submitted before July 16 or after August 8, 2012. Lastly, the Court concluded that "the likelihood of streamlining discovery for and adjudication of the antitrust counterclaims based on the outcome of Craigslist's claims-even if those counterclaims must ultimately proceed-warrants bifurcation," and therefore granted craigslist's motion to bifurcate and stay discovery on the antitrust counterclaims.

This action is closely linked to two other threats in the database: Prenda Law v. Godfread and Steele v. Godfread. Several of the related filings can be found in the database entry for Prenda Law v. Godfread.

Plaintiff Paul Duffy is an attorney affiliated with a law firm (Prenda Law, Inc.) that has been representing clients in numerous plaintiff-side copyright cases concerning the sharing of movies over the BitTorrent protocol. These cases have been brought on behalf of several different asserted rightsholders, including the entities AF Holdings LLC and Ingenuity 13 LLC. According to a statement made by attorney Brett Gibbs, who identified himself as Of Counsel to the firm, both AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 are incorporated in the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis. The defendant in one proceeding initiated by the firm has alleged that these entities are shell companies, and that the attorneys bringing the lawsuits own some or all of the these companies.

Multiple filings in these copyright proceedings have included the signature of an "Alan Cooper," who has been identified as a principal of both AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13. On November 29, 2012, an Alan Cooper, through his attorney Paul Godfread, filed a letter with two federal judges in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, stating that he had reason to believe that John Steele and Prenda Law were using his name on filings related to these lawsuits without his permission, and that he is not in any way affiliated with AF Holdings or Ingenuity 13. On January 23, 2013, Cooper (through Godfread) sued John Steele, Prenda Law, AF Holdings, and Ingenuity 13 for invasion of privacy and violation of Minnesota's deceptive trade practices statute in the Minnesota District Court for the Fourth Judicial District.

On February 15, 2013, Duffy sued Cooper, his attorney, and 10 unnamed defendants for defamation, false light, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy in the Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County. This follows a nearly-identical lawsuit filed by Prenda Law against the same defendants for the same claims in the Illinois Circuit Court for St. Clair County, and was shortly followed by a high similar lawsuit by John Steele in Florida Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. All three complaints alleges that Cooper and Godfread have falsely accused the respective plaintiffs of committing crimes and frauds, in both statements online and filings before the Minnesota courts. The complaints identify dozens of statements that are alleged to have been made on different online fora about Prenda Law and its members. 

All three of these cases were removed to federal courts: the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois, Southern District of Illinois, and the Southern District of Florida, respectively. On March 6, 2013, John Steele voluntarily dismissed the complaint in the Florida action.

Update:

On March 7, 2013, the website dietrolldie.com reported that a subpoena had been issued on February 25, 2013 by the plaintiff in the closely related case Prenda Law v. Godfread to Automattic, Inc., the owner of Wordpress.com, seeking all IP addresses that accessed that website and fightcopyrighttrolls.com. Both websites extensively criticize Prenda Law and its litigation methods, and appear to be the host of many of the comments alleged to be defamatory in Prenda Law's complaint. The subpoena seeks the IP addresses of all machines that accessed the two websites from January 1, 2011 through present. The subpoena had a return date of March 4, 2013. 

On March 21, 2013, Godfread and Cooper filed an answer and counterclaims. In addition to denying the claims asserted by Duffy, defendants claimed a series of affirmative defenses, including truth, litigation privilege, a bar on the claim based on Minnesota's anti-SLAPP statute, and the doctrine of unclean hands, based on Duffy's use of defendant Cooper's name in litigation. The defendants also asserted counterclaims, seeking a declaratory judgment of immunity from suit based on Minnesota's anti-SLAPP law, noting the threats of suit made both in communications to the defendants and in the two other defamation filings. The pleading also asserts claims of civil conspiracy and breach of privacy, and seeks to pierce the corporate veil of AF Holdings LLC, Ingenuity 13 LLC, and Prenda Law, Inc.

On April 11, 2013, Duffy filed a motion to strike the affirmative defenses and dismiss the counterclaims. The motion alleges that the counterclaims do not assert facts related to Paul Duffy personally, but instead are based on actions of non-parties John Steele and Prenda Law, Inc. The motion also alleges that the affirmative defenses lack any factual allegations.

On April  16, 2013, Godfread and Cooper filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Minnesota's anti-SLAPP act. The motion argues that under Illinois conflict-of-laws analysis the Minnesota anti-SLAPP is appropriately applied against the Illinois defamation claim, as Minnesota's interest in the anti-SLAPP is to protect Minnesota speakers.

On April 23, 2013, the court issued a scheduling order staying discovery pending resolution of the anti-SLAPP motion. According to the order, responsive pleadings to the pending motions are due May 15, 2013, with replies due May 29th and argument scheduled for August 14, 2013.

On May 14, 2013, Cooper and Godfread filed an opposition to Duffy's motion to dismiss the counterclaims and motion to strike the affirmative defenses. Defendants argue that Duffy is precluded from further litigating the merits of the defendant's counterclaims following a widely-reported case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where a judge made a judicial finding that AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 were created "for the sole purpose of litigating copyright-infringement lawsuits," and that Prenda Law's principals "stole the identity of Alan Cooper," and "fraudulently signed the copyright assignment . . . using Alan Cooper's signature." The court in that case sanctioned Prenda Law and its principals, including Duffy, following their invocation of the Fifth Amendment to questions concerning their business practices. The defendants further argued that the counterclaims satisfy the pleading standard under Bell Atlantic v. Twombly by giving the plaintiff fair notice of the claims against it, and that striking the affirmative defenses under FRCP 12(f) is inappropriate as the pleading standards of Twombly have not been applied to affirmative defenses. 

On May 15, 2013, plaintiff Prenda Law filed a motion in opposition of the motion to dismiss under Minnesota's anti-SLAPP statute. Plaintiff argues that the Minnesota statute does not apply to the action because there is no evidence that the statements were made in Minnesota. Prenda Law also argues that Illinois choice-of-law provisions should prevent application of the Minnesota statute, that application of the anti-SLAPP statute fails on the merits, and that federal courts should not be applying this statute, as it is largely procedural under the Erie doctrine. The defendants replied to this motion on May 28, 2013.

Following the transfer of venue in Prenda Law v. Godfread to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the defendants filed a motion to reassign and consolidate these two cases on June 13, 2013. In a minute order on June 28th, the court noted that the plaintiff did not object to the motion to consolidate, and the court consolidated the two actions accordingly.

On August 14, 2013, the court filed an order denying Godfread and Cooper's motion to dismiss under the Minnesota anti-SLAPP, denying Duffy's motion to strike the affirmative defenses, and granting Duffy's motion to dismiss Godfread and Cooper's counterclaims (but allowing those claims to be refiled). Although the court found that Illinois's choice of law provisions dictated that application of Minnesota's anti-SLAPP law was proper in this case, the statute did not apply because the statements at issue were not shown to be directed toward public participation. The court also rejected Godfread and Cooper's counterclaims due to being largely directed toward Prenda Law's actions, instead of those personally done by Duffy, but allowed the defendants to refile amended counterclaims.

This action is closely linked to two other threats in the database: Steele v. Godfread and Duffy v. Godfread.

Plaintiff Prenda Law is a law firm that has brought numerous plaintiff-side copyright cases concerning the sharing of movies over the BitTorrent protocol. These cases have been brought on behalf of several different asserted rightsholders, including the entities AF Holdings LLC and Ingenuity 13 LLC. According to a statement made by attorney Brett Gibbs, who identified himself as Of Counsel to Prenda Law, both AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 are incorporated in the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis. The defendant in one proceeding initiated by Prenda Law has alleged that these entities are shell companies, and that the attorneys bringing the lawsuits own some or all of the these companies.

Multiple filings in these proceedings have included the signature of an "Alan Cooper," who has been identified as a principal of both AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13. On November 29, 2012, an Alan Cooper, through his attorney Paul Godfread, filed a letter with two federal judges in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, stating that he had reason to believe that John Steele and Prenda Law were using his name on filings related to these lawsuits without his permission, and that he is not in any way affiliated with AF Holdings or Ingenuity 13. On January 23, 2013, Cooper (through Godfread) sued John Steele, Prenda Law, AF Holdings, and Ingenuity 13 for invasion of privacy and violation of Minnesota's deceptive trade practices statute in the Minnesota District Court for the Fourth Judicial District.

On February 12, 2013 Prenda Law Firm, Inc. sued Cooper, his attorney, and 10 unnamed defendants for defamation, false light, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy in the Illinois Circuit Court for St. Clair County. Nearly identical complaints were filed by Prenda Law attorney Paul Duffy in the Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County and by John Steele in Florida Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. All three complaints allege that Cooper and Godfread have falsely accused the respective plaintiffs of committing crimes and frauds, in both statements online and filings before the Minnesota courts. The complaints identify dozens of statements that are alleged to have been made on different online fora about Prenda Law and its members. 

All three of these cases were removed to federal courts: the United States District Courts for the Southern District of Illinois, Northern District of Illinois, and the Southern District of Florida, respectively. On March 6, 2013, John Steele voluntarily dismissed the complaint in the Florida action. The two Illinois actions are still pending.

Update:

On March 7, 2013, the website dietrolldie.com reported that a subpoena had been issued on February 25, 2013 by the plaintiff to Automattic, Inc., the owner of Wordpress.com, seeking all IP addresses that accessed that website and fightcopyrighttrolls.com. Both websites extensively criticize Prenda Law and its litigation methods, and appear to be the host of many of the comments alleged to be defamatory in Prenda Law's complaint. The subpoena seeks the IP addresses of all machines that accessed the two websites from January 1, 2011 through present. The subpoena had a return date of March 4, 2013.

On March 21, 2013, Godfread and Cooper filed an answer and counterclaims. In the pleading the defendants claimed a series of affirmative defenses, including truth, litigation privilege, a bar on the claim based on Minnesota's anti-SLAPP statute, and the doctrine of unclean hands, based on Prenda Law's use of defendant Cooper's name in litigation. The defendants also asserted counterclaims, seeking a declaratory judgment of immunity from suit based on Minnesota's anti-SLAPP law, noting the threats of suit made both in communications to the defendants and in the two other defamation filings. The pleading also asserts claims of civil conspiracy and breach of privacy, and seeks to pierce the corporate veil of AF Holdings LLC, Ingenuity 13 LLC, and plaintiff Prenda Law.

On March 26, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss or transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, noting in their accompanying motion that no activity of the defendants occurred in the Southern District and the plaintiff is located in Chicago, in the Northern District.

On April 10, 2013,  plaintiff Prenda Law, Inc, now joined by a second plaintiff, Alpha Law Firm LLC, filed a motion to remand the case back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The inclusion of Alpha Law Firm is apparently justified through an amended complaint that was filed in state court shortly before the remand, but for which the state docket includes no mention of a grant of leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-616. The motion argues a lack of diversity between the parties, due to Alpha Law being a Minnesota entity.

On April 11, 2013, Prenda Law filed a motion to strike the affirmative defenses and dismiss the counterclaims. The motion alleges that the counterclaims largely surround non-party John Steele. The motion also alleges that the affirmative defenses lack any factual allegations.

On April 16, 2013, Charles Lee Mudd Jr. appeared as an attorney for two of the yet-unidentified John Doe defendants, the websites DieTrollDie.com and FightCopyrightTrolls.com. Also on April 16th, Godfread and Cooper filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Minnesota's anti-SLAPP act. The motion argues that under Illinois conflict-of-laws analysis the Minnesota anti-SLAPP is appropriately applied against the Illinois defamation claim, as Minnesota's interest in the anti-SLAPP is to protect Minnesota speakers.

On April 17, 2013,  attorneys for DieTrollDie.com filed a motion to quash in a miscellaneous case filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The motion to quash concerns a second subpoena issued on Feburary 27, 2013, to non-party WildWest Domains. The subpoena sought the contact information for the owner of DieTrollDie.com. The motion argues that the improper court issued the subpoena under Illinois law, and that the comments are protected anonymous speech and the identities of the commenters should be protected from disclosure under the Dendrite/Cahill lines of cases, as the District of Arizona had done previously in Best Western Int'l v. Doe. (A proposed memorandum in support of the motion was denied as redundant of the motion itself, while the original oversized motion was allowed.) On April 18, 2013, and again on May 7, 2013, the court ordered plaintiff Prenda Law to file a corporate disclosure statement. The docket reflects no record of response by Prenda Law. On  May 15, 2013, DieTrollDie.com filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion to quash, noting that Prenda Law had not served an answering memorandum. On May 16, the court issued an order quashing the subpoena.

On May 10, 2013, Cooper and Godfread filed an opposition to Prenda Law's motion to dismiss the counterclaim and motion to strike the affirmative defenses. Defendants argue that plaintiffs are precluded from further litigating the merits of the defendant's counterclaims following a widely-reported case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where a judge made a judicial finding that AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 were created "for the sole purpose of litigating copyright-infringement lawsuits," and that Prenda Law's principals "stole the identity of Alan Cooper," and "fraudulently signed the copyright assignment . . . using Alan Cooper's signature." The court in that case sanctioned Prenda Law and its principals following their invocation of the Fifth Amendment to questions concerning their business practices. The defendants further argued that the counterclaims satisfy the pleading standard under Bell Atlantic v. Twombly by giving the plaintiff fair notice of the claims against it, and that striking the affirmative defenses under FRCP 12(f) is inappropriate as the pleading standards of Twombly have not been applied to affirmative defenses.

Also on May 10, 2013, defendants Cooper and Godfread filed a motion opposing plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to state court. The motion argues that plaintiff made a material misrepresentation in its motion to remand by claiming the original complaint was amended to add Minnesota plaintiff Alpha Law Firm, thus breaking the court's diversity jurisdiction. The defendants argue that the amended complaint was invalid because it was filed in violation of Illinois rules, which require leave of the court to amend a complaint after service of the complaint on defendants. In support of this, the defendants attach an affidavit of the St. Clair County Clerk that accepted the amended complaint, noting that the attorney for Prenda Law filing the amended complaint claimed that the defendants had not been served with the original complaint, and that was the reason the court accepted the complaint with motion for leave. The defendants claim that this was a knowing misrepresentation, as service had been made in fact and that a principal of Prenda Law called Godfread shortly after service, but before the amended complaint was filed. Defendants further argue that the motion to remand was filed too late, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447.

On May 20, 2013, plaintiff Prenda Law filed a motion in opposition of the motion to dismiss under Minnesota's anti-SLAPP statute. Plaintiff argues that the Minnesota statute does not apply to the action because there is no evidence that the statements were made in Minnesota. Prenda Law also argues that Illinois choice-of-law provisions should prevent application of the Minnesota statute, that application of the anti-SLAPP statute fails on the merits, and that federal courts should not be applying this statute, as it is largely procedural under the Erie doctrine. The defendants replied to this motion on May 28th.

On June 6, 2013, the court granted the defendants' March 26th motion to transfer venue and denied the motion to remand to state court, transferring the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The court found that the motion to dismiss for improper venue under rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was waived due to prior responsive pleading, but treated Prenda's failure to respond to the motion for transfer of venue as admission that a different venue was proper. The court also noted the "virtually identical" action Duffy v. Godfread, already in the Northern District. 

In Duffy v. Godfread, the defendants filed a motion to reassign and consolidate these two cases pursuant to the Northern District of Illinois's Local Rule 40.4, which allows for reassignment of a case to a Judge dealing with a case concerning the same transaction or occurrence. In a minute order on June 28, 2013, the court noted that the plaintiff did not object to the motion to consolidate, and the court consolidated the two actions accordingly.

On August 12, 2013, Prenda Law filed a renewed motion to remand, again alleging that Alpha Law Firm was properly joined in the case, and thus broke diversity.

In August 2012, two football players from Steubenville High School were arrested and charged with the rape of a 16-year-old girl. Classmates circulated Twitter posts, videos, and photographs indicating that the players may have carried the girl, unconscious, from party to party and sexually assaulted her while others watched. A police investigation uncovered pictures of the girl, naked and apparently unconscious, from partygoers' phones.

Cody Saltsman, a football player who was not indicted, tweeted a picture of the girl looking unresponsive as two boys carry her by her wrists and ankles. He also tweeted comments about the girl, including the phrases "whore status," "sloppy," and "I have no sympathy for whores."

Alexandria Goddard, a blogger who writes under the pseudonym "Prinnie" at prinniefied.com, wrote a series of blog posts on the case. She posted screen shots of related Twitter posts and photos. She also suggested that a number of unindicted individuals had participated in the rape, including Cody Saltsman. In response to a comment on her blog reading "students by day ... gang rape participants by night," Goddard wrote, "Cody Saltsman [is] playing tonight. Reno, SHAME ON YOU." She also wrote that his fellow football players should "roll on their pal Cody Manson" and "[p]erhaps when scumbag is finally arrested I will post a picture of him for his mother that says ‘How do you like your scumbag son now?' ... Tell Cody not to feel too bad, he is not the lone asshole in all this."

A number of commenters on the blog also posted about Saltsman, including statements that he was there when the rape was occurring, that he was the "mastermind" behind the crime, that he had previously stated he would "ruin that bitch," and that he had sent the victim's father the picture of her being carried by her wrists and ankles with text reading "look at your whore daughter now." Other commenters made comments including: "[g]et CS and his posy [sic] off the field and problem solved"; "Cody needs to suffr some consequences too!"; and, in response to the question "[w]hat is [the Saltsman's] business because I never want to spend money there," the statement "CS father owns Fort Steuben Plumbing/Maintenance."

On October 25, 2012, Saltsman and his parents, James and Johna Saltsman, filed a complaint against Goddard, fifteen anonymous commenters identified by screen names and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses (including those who made the above statements), and ten additional John Doe defendants. Saltsman sued for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages in excess of $25,000, and punitive damages. The complaint was amended on November 19, 2012 to add claims for false light and spoliation of evidence.

Saltsman's attorneys obtained the IP addresses for each anonymous commenter from HostGator, the Internet Service Provider (ISP) for the "prinnified" blog, which apparently turned over the IP addresses without providing notice to the commenters or to Goddard. On November 16, the plaintiffs moved for authorization to conduct discovery from each anonymous commenter's ISP in order to obtain the commenters' identities.

Goddard's counsel objected to Plaintiffs' motion for authorization to conduct discovery to obtain the identities of the anonymous defendants, asserting that the First Amendment right to speak anonymously barred such discovery.

In a supplemental memo supporting the motion for authority to conduct discovery, Saltsman disputed that the First Amendment protected the identities of the authors, urged the court to act quickly in order to prevent the ISPs from deleting relevant information, and argued that Goddard had no standing to object on behalf of the Does.

Acknowledging that there were no published Ohio decisions on point, Saltsman directed the court to the often-followed test laid out in Dendrite Int'l Inc. v. Doe No. 3. 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2001). Under Dendrite, courts allow plaintiffs to conduct discovery on anonymous online posters' identities when plaintiffs (1) attempt to notify defendants that their identities are being sought and explain how to present a defense; (2) quote verbatim the allegedly actionable online speech; (3) allege all elements of the cause of action; (4) present evidence supporting the claim of violation; and (5) show that, on balance and in context, the plaintiff's right to identify the speaker in order to redress alleged wrongs outweighs the First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Saltsman asserted that he met all of these elements, particularly focusing on the fifth element, the balancing of rights. Because the First Amendment does not protect false assertions of fact, he argued, the defendants had no right to anonymous speech in this context.

Goddard filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the motion on November 21, and a supplemental Memorandum in Opposition on November 26. Plaintiffs' responded with a second supplemental memorandum in support of their motion on November 28.

The Court filed an order on November 29, granting the plaintiffs' motion. The court authorized the relevant ISPs to release personally identifiable information associated with the IP addresses identified in the complaint. The court required that notice of the discovery be given to the anonymous commenters and that the commenters be given fourteen days after the notice to file motions to quash.

On December 14, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio stated in a press release that they had offered to represent a number of the "John Doe" defendants. ACLU Volunteer Attorney Scott Greenwood stated, "[w]e believe the real goal of this lawsuit is to discover the identity of anonymous online commenters so that they, and future commenters will be intimidated and discouraged from voicing their opinions. This is just an updated form of a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) which is typically used to silence speech that is protected under the First Amendment."

Plaintiffs reached a settlement with Goddard and the anonymous commenters and voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice on December 27, 2012. With one exception (defendant Waguespack), the identities of the commenters were not disclosed. No money was exchanged, and Goddard did not retract any statements or agree to stop covering the case. Goddard did write on her blog that she "never had any evidence of [Cody Saltsman's] direct involvement" in the events of the night and agreed to give him space on her blog to present his side of the story.

The "prinnified" blog also ran the following statement from Cody Saltsman: "I deeply regret my actions on the night of August 11, 2012. While I wasn't at the home where the alleged assault took place, there is no doubt that I was wrong to post that picture from an earlier party and tweet those awful comments. ... At no time did my family mean to stop anyone from expressing themselves online - we only wanted to correct what we believed were misstatements that appeared on Ms. Goddard's blog. "