In December 2009, counsel for Demi Moore sent a demand letter to Anna Holmes, Editor-In-Chief of Jezebel.com, in regard to a Jezebel post from November that speculated about whether Moore's cover photo for W Magazine had been photoshopped because of an extremely skinny looking left hip. 

The letter asserted that the post defamed Ms. Moore by suggesting that she "secretly uses extraordinary artificial means to alter her appearance," and by insinuating that Ms. Moore had been untruthful in informing people that the image accurately reflected her body and hip. The letter also enclosed supporting letters from W's Creative Director Dennis Freedman and from Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott, the photographers who took the photo. Freedman's letter stated that "no one at the magazine did any retouching of the image of Demi Moore," and the photographers' letter said "there was ABSOLUTELY no retouching on her lips or waist or legs!!"

Moore's letter demanded an apology and retraction, and that Jezebel.com remove all false and defamatory statements about Ms. Moore or the photo from the website.  The letter also warned: "Confidential Legal Notice, Publication or Dissemination Is Prohibited." 

In response, Jezebel.com posted the letter and wrote a follow-up piece on the situation.  No photos or statements were removed, but Holmes did publish an apology, of sorts:

That said, we would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize if we cast aspersions on, or in any way hurt the feelings of Ms. Moore's left hip, waist, or legs. Our only intention was to call attention to distorted and disturbing-looking magazine covers... and the editors, photographers, art directors and retouchers who commission and create them.

Moore's counsel sent a nearly identical letter to Boing Boing and fashion photography blogger Anthony Citrano.

In February 2009, Vision Media TV, a company that makes video segments that advertise nonprofit companies, sued Julia Forte, who runs the website 800Notes, a forum site on which members of the public can discuss telemarketing companies and practices. Vision Media filed suit in federal district court in Florida after Forte refused to identify users who posted critical comments about the company and to remove the postings. The complaint, which has been amended several times, currently includes claims for libel, trademark dilution under Florida law, and "defamation by implication."

In January 2010, Forte moved to dismiss the complaint, or alternatively for summary judgment.  She argued, among other things, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over her, and that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized her for publishing the statements of her users.  In an unusual move, Vision Media TV moved to strike Forte's motion to dismiss because her counsel posted the motion papers on the Public Citizen Litigation Group website. 

Update:

1/27/10 - Forte filed an Opposition to Motion to Strike and for Gag Order.

2/04/10 - The Court denied the Motion to Strike. 

In November 2009, Levinson Axelrod, a New Jersey law firm, sued its former associate Edward Harrington Heyburn and his law firm over a gripe site Heyburn operated at www.levinsonaxelrod.net and later http://levinsonaxelrodreallysucks.com/.

The complaint included claims for trademark infringement and dilution, violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, unfair competition, and breach of duty of loyalty.  The law firm also sought a temporary restraining order, enjoining Heyburn from using its trademark in domain names, disclosing confidential client information, and "portraying on [his] website the Plaintiff's law firm in any manner which is contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct."  Brief, at 31-32. 

Heyburn filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and Levinson Axelrod's request for temporary restraints.  In January 2010, after a hearing, the court issued an order converting the law firm's motion into a motion for a preliminary injunction, granting a preliminary injunction barring Heyburn from using "www.LevinsonAxelrod.net," and denying his motion to dismiss.

On January 14, 2010, during the second day of a high-profile murder trial, Circuit Judge L. Page Haddock of the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court in Duval County, Florida, ordered a reporter for the Florida Times-Union's Jacksonville.com to stop live-blogging the trial. Reporter Bridget Murhpy had been posting her live updates to a Jacksonville.com page dedicated to the trial, which also hosts streaming video coverage of the trial. 

The judge stated that that the computer was distracting the jury and that live-blogging violates a Florida Supreme Court order about how many transmitting devices are allowed in a courtroom.  According to regular court practice in the jurisdiction, one television camera and one still photographer also were covering the proceedings, and the judge ruled that only two devices total were permitted.  Later that day, counsel for the newspaper presented argument before the court and filed a written motion, but Judge Haddock denied its motion to allow live-blogging. (The judge's order and the newspaper's motion are contained in Exhibits 1 and 3 of Petitioner's Appendix.) 

The next day, Judge Haddock issued an amended order (contained in Exhibit 5 of the Petitioner's Appendix), which appears to allow use of electronic media on a limited basis.  According to MediaPost, the Times-Union is interpreting the new order as allowing it to alternate between taking still photos and live-blogging in the case.

On January 15, the newspaper filed an emergency petition with the District Court of Appeal for review of the trial court's orders.

Update:

1/20/10 - The District Court of Appeal granted the petition for emergency appeal and quashed the order denying the newspaper's motion for laptop access. He appellate court sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to allow the newspaper's reporter to use a laptop in the courtroom "unless the court finds a specific factual basis to conclude that such use cannot be accommodated without undue distraction or disruption."  According to Jacksonville.com, this ruling was fiollowed by a new decision from Judge Haddock that leaves in place the reporting restrictions he imposed on January 15. 

In July 2009, Marc Castaldi, a real estate developer, brought a defamation lawsuit in New York state court against Goetz Fitzpatrick, LLP, after he discovered LegalLawComplaints.com (no longer available), which linked to documents related to legal claims involving Castaldi or his business. Goetz Fitzpatrick is a law firm that represented Matthew and Helene Byrnes against Castaldi in a different case regarding a real estate development matter.

Castaldi's complaint alleged that the Byrnes funded the creation of the website and claimed that the unfairly selective nature of the documents was intended to harm his business. It also accused the firm of tortious interference with Castaldi's prospective business and asked for an injunction to remove the website and for damages.

The website has since been removed, but the lawsuit is still pending.

A Kentucky college student who was kicked out of a mall for wearing a short dress issued a subpoena to the Richmond Register seeking the identity of an anonymous poster on the newspaper's website.  The subpoena was issued in connection with a case filed in Kentucky state court against the anonymous commenter for allegedly posting a defamatory comment about her on the Richmond Register's site on Aug. 13, 2008, under a story about the mall incident. According to the complaint, the commenter, identified only as 12bme, claimed Clem was kicked out because she exposed herself to another woman and her children. 

The newspaper subsequently deleted the comment and banned 12bme from the site for violating the site's terms of service. According to the Student Press Law Center, the newspaper opposed Clem's subpoena, claiming that the identity of the commenter  should fall under the Kentucky's reporter shield law because a Register reporter wrote an article about the lawsuit, which mentioned the comment.

Pembroke Pines Police Officer Daniel Rakofsky filed a "Complaint for Pure Bill of Discovery" against the publishers of the South Florid Sun-Sentinel newspaper, seeking the identities of several pseudonymous commenters to a Sun-Sentinel article about him. 

On November 5, 2009, the Sun-Sentinel published an article about Officer Rakofsky under the headline "Officer accused of sending nude photos of ex-lover."  (The article is no longer available on the Sun-Sentinel site, but is available on its mobile news platform and WPTV.com.)  According to Rakofsky's complaint, the comments section associated with the article contained unspecified, allegedly defamatory statements about him posted by pseudonymous users of the website.  

The "pure bill of discovery" used by Rakofsky is a procedural mechanism recognized in Florida, through which the plaintiff can obtain factual information from a defendant (here, the newspaper) in anticipation of filing another lawsuit against an ultimate wrongdoer (here, the commenters).  It is similar to the petition for "pre-action discovery" involved in the Liskula Cohen case in New York.

It is not clear whether the Sun-Sentinel has formally responded as of the date of writing.

Update:

2/24/2010 - The Sun-Sentinel moves to dismiss.

4/16/2010 - Rakofsky opposes the paper's motion.

4/26/2010 - The court denies the Sun-Sentinel's motion to dismiss.

5/18/2010 - The Sun-Sentinel files an answer to the complaint.

Dr. Sanford Siegal, creator of the "Cookie Diet" weight-loss program, and his company, Dr. Siegal's Direct Nutritionals, LLC, filed a defamation lawsuit against celebrity socialite, model, and actress Kim Kardashian after she posted negative comments about the "Cookie Diet" on Twitter.  

The controversy began when Dr. Siegal's company placed a hyperlink on its website to a third-party article that incorrectly claimed that Kardashian, among other celebrities, used the "Cookie Diet" program.  According to the complaint, Kardashian then posted the following comments on her Twitter page in October 2009:

14(a) Dr. Siegal's Cookie Diet is falsely promoting that I'm on this diet.  NOT TRUE!  I would never do this unhealthy diet! I do QuickTrim! . . .

14(b) If this Dr. Siegal is lying about me being on this diet, what else are they lying about?  Not cool!  . . .

The complaint alleges that these statements are false and defamatory, and that Kardashian had a "commercial motive" to defame Dr. Siegal's company because she is a paid spokesperson for QuickTrim diet products.  

On December 29, 2009, agents of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) interrogated and served subpoenas on two travel bloggers who had posted a TSA security directive put in place after the failed Christmas day "underwear bomber" attempt. The two bloggers, Steven Frischling and Chris Elliott, posted the text of the directive on December 27 after confusion arose over air travel procedures and restrictions in the wake of the failed terrorist attack.

Frischling, a freelance travel writer and photographer who publishes a blog for KLM Airlines and Flying With Fish, complied with the subpoena, in part because he did not know the identity of the source, there is no federal shield law to protect him, and he felt that he could lessen the ordeal by cooperating. According to Wired, agents went through his phone contacts and determined it was necessary to take an image of his hard drive. In the process of trying to copy files, agents damaged Frischling’s laptop. With Frischling’s permission, they seized the computer, departed, and later returned it.

Elliott, who publishes the blog Elliott and writes a column for the Washington Post and MSNBC, refused to divulge his source and retained counsel. The TSA then backed off and ultimately withdrew the subpoena on December 31.

That same day, the TSA notified Frischling that it was withdrawing the subpoena.  It is not clear whether the agency will compensate Frischling for damaging his laptop. 

James Carabelli, chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County, Michigan, sued The Michigan Messenger, a news site owned by the Center for Independent Media, for defamation in Michigan state court in October 2008. The lawsuit revolves around a September 10, 2008 article entitled "Lose your house, lose your vote," written by staff reporter Eartha Jane Melzer. The lawsuit also named as defendants Melzer, Jefferson Morley, editorial director of the website, and David Bennahum, President and CEO of the Center for Independent Media.

Melzer's article discussed alleged plans on the part of Republican officials in Michigan to challenge voters based on lists of home foreclosures. It attributed the following quote to Carabelli: "We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses." Carabelli denies having made this statement and the existence of any such plans. The article drew national attention and spurred a lawsuit by the Obama campaign against the Michigan Republican Party, which subsequently settled.

The Michigan Messenger stands behind the accuracy of the quotation. After the suit was filed, Jefferson Morely told the First Amendment Center:

We've reviewed Eartha's phone records and e-mails to recreate what Eartha reported and how she did it. . . . This review of the record leaves no doubt that the conversation with Mr. Carabelli took place, that the question of voter challenges was discussed, that Mr. Carabelli said what he said, that Eartha reported those comments immediately and accurately to her editors, and then to readers.

Doug Preisse, an Ohio G.O.P. official, also challenged the accuracy of remarks attributed to him in Melzer's article. The website issued a clarification regarding Preisse's comments on September 19.

Update:

01/13/2009 - Judge ordered dismissal of the case for non-service.