Proceeding anonymously, the owner of a country club located in Del Mar, California filed a petition in Texas state court seeking pre-litigation discovery from Google, arguing that "derogatory statements" about her had been posted on "blogs hosted by Google." The Texas state court granted MP permission to issue subpoenas to Google, and she issued subpoenas seeking the identies of the creator of the Del Mar Country Club Sucks blog and all persons who posted comments there. 

Google notified the creator of the blog, who moved to quash the subpoena.  Public Citizen and the ACLU submitted an amicus brief in support of the motion to quash, arguing that the country club owner had not justified filing suit in Texas over comments on a blog about a California country club, and that the country club owner had not produced sufficient evidence to overcome First Amendment protection for anonymous speech. The court granted the country club owner permission to amend her petition to meet the standard required by the First Amendment, but she failed to come forward with sufficient allegations or evidence, and the court granted the motion to quash the subpoena.

Stephen Mitchell, the administrator of Council House, Inc., a nonprofit housing complex for low-income senior citizens in Seattle, sought a restraining order against Council House resident Paul Trummel in 2001 after Trummel allegedly verbally accosted staff and residents, disrupted meetings, posted his newsletter on resident doors without permission, spied on residents at night by listening outside their apartment doors, and threatened to report residents to criminal authorities if they failed to meet with him, among other things.  The trial court granted a restraining order that prohibited Trummel from making any attempt to contact Mitchell or to keep Mitchell "under surveillance," and from going within 1,000 feet of Mitchell's residence or workplace, from entering or coming within 500 feet of Council House, and from "contacting in person, by email, electronically, by telephone, by writing, or through any third person, any resident of Council House and any board member, staff or employee of Council House at any location." 

Five months later, Mitchell moved for a finding of civil contempt for violation of the antiharassment, claiming that Trummel violated the "surveillance" provision of the anti-harassment order by posting stories on the Internet about events at the Council House.  He alleged that staff and residents felt endangered by Trummel's posting of their private information, including their home addresses, on the website and that they "felt under contiued surveillance by Trummel." Trummel argued that Mitchell's definition of "surveillance" was too broad and that he was exercising his First Amendment rights when posting about events at Council House, occurring both before and after the anti-harassment order was issued.

The trial court found Trummel in civil contempt and ordered him to edit his website "to assure that is in compliance with the . . . anti-harassment order" by, at a minimum, deleting the "names, addresses and any other personal information regarding past and present Council House staff, residents, employees, board members, or agents including legal council." The court determined in a later hearing that Trummel continued to be in contempt and modified the original harassment order, adding language restraining Trummel from "attempting to keep under suveillance" any current or former resident of Council House.  At this point, Trummel deleted identifying information about residents from his website.

Trummel then began using an off-shore website to post information about staff and residents of Council House.  At a subsequent hearing, at which Trummel was not represented by council, the court found him in contempt again and ordered him jailed.  He remained in jail for almost four months.  

Trummel appealed the contempt findings and anti-harassment orders. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in all respects.  On further appeal, the Washington Supreme Court vactated the contempt findings on grounds that posting information about events and people at Council House did not constitute "surveillance." The court vacated those portions of the anti-harassment orders that restrained Trummel from attempting to keep residents and staff  under surveillance, from contacting current or former residents and staff, and from going within 100 feet of any past, current, or future Council House Board member, resident, or employee. The court did not reach Trummel's arguments that the anti-harassment and contempt orders violated the First Amendment. See generally Trummel v. Mitchell, 131 P.3d 305 (Wash. 2006).

David O. Markus, an attorney who writes the Southern District of Florida Blog, was silenced by a gag order issued by Judge Joan Lenard of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in connection with the "Liberty City 7" case (involving an alleged plot to blow up the Sears Tower). Markus had written posts about the case and called into question the gag order that Judge Lenard imposed on Lyglenson Lemorin, his wife, and his lawyer Joel DeFabio after Lemorin was acquitted by a jury.  Judge Lemorin had declared a mistrial as to Lemorin's co-defendants and issued the gag order to help ensure an impartial jury pool for the new trial.

Markus appeared before the court on behalf of DeFabio in order to challenge the gag order. Judge Lenard then extended the gag order to cover DeFabio's "agents," which clearly applied to Markus. Because of the order, Markus could no longer blog about the case.

Markus filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, asking that the appeals court lift the gag order. Judge Lenard then modified the gag order so that it only applied to the underlying terrorism case, not to statements about Lemorin's impending immigration case in the Southern District of Florida.  As a result of this modification, the Elevent Circuit dismissed Markus's petition.

Tim Puntarelli, Dean of Roncalli High Scool in Indianapolis, filed a defamation lawsuit against an anonymous Facebook user (or users) who allegedly created a fake profie for him and used it to send inappropriate messages to students.  According to one press report, the lawsuit also claimed that the user engaged in harassment and identity theft.  Puntarelli sought information about the anonymous user or users from Facebook, which resisted this effort. 

The court ultimately ordered Facebook to produce identifying information for its user(s). Facebook removed the profile at Puntarelli's request before the lawsuit was filed.

Reverend Ronald K. Moore and his wife sued Valerie O'Bannon after she created a website claiming that she had a five-month affair with Moore. According to the MLRC, Moore obtained an injunction from a Mississippi chancery court shutting down the website in February 2007 and attempted to have O'Bannon put in jail when she failed to do so.  Moore later refiled the case in Circuit Court in Hines County.

MySpace provided records subpoenaed by the Boulder County sheriff's department in a criminal libel investigation, commenced after a Colorado woman reported finding pictures of herself on MySpace under a fake profile named "Dirty Whore" that included information indicating that she was interested in meeting “men, women and/or couples who are looking to have a fun time.”

As of September 15, 2008, no criminal charges appear to have been filed. 

The California law firm Peters & Freedman sued Elizabeth and Arnold McMahon for libel and invasion of privacy based on statements they posted on their website, American Homeowners Resource Center, which describes itself as a “public interest interactive website for homeowners” to "help citizens in homeowner associations . . . take back their homes from the two generations of crooked lawyers, politicians, judges and vendors who have stolen them."

The law firm, which specializes in homeowners’ association law, asserts in its complaint that the McMahons falsely accused it of committing illegal and unprofessional conduct while representing homeowners associations in various lawsuits. One of the law firms lawyers, Jeffrey Pratt, also sued the McMahons for libel. See the related entry, Pratt v. McMahon, for more information.

On September 27, 2006, the McMahons filed a motion under California's anti-SLAPP statute to strike the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff's claims arose from the exercise of their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and to petition for the redress of grievances.

The court denied the motion to dismiss, and a California appellate court affirmed, holding that the comments “do not concern a public issue."

The case is set for a jury trial on 1/12/09.

On July 22, 2008, Elizabeth Silver, a blogger on PerezRevenge.com (now www.rPulse.com), which describes itself as a "website where celebrities could post information about their careers, events and when necessary personal lives without the taint of rumor or speculation" sued rival celebrity blogger Mario Lavandeira (aka Perez Hilton), who operates the blog perezhilton.com, for copyright infringement, violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and other claims.

On July 21, 2008, Hilton had sued Silver, Infuse LLC, and Margie E. Rogers over their use of the name PerezRevenge, claiming the use was a violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, as well as unfair competition, federal dilution of trademark, and unfair trade practices. See the related claim, Lavandeira v. Infuse, LLC.

Update: 

On January 7, 2009,  a magistrate judge issue a Report and Recommendation rejecting Silver's claims.  After Silver failed to object to the Report, the court on February 26 adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.  According to a March 06 order issued by the court, Silver appears to have then filed for voluntary dismissal of the case.

An Ohio hospital, a doctor, and a nurse sued Joel Selmeier for defamation after he created a website making allegations about how he was treated during a 1996 hernia operation. According to one press account, the plaintiffs obtained a court order sealing the case and requiring Selmeier to take down his site, but the court reversed itself a month later.  According to the MLRC, the nurse's case went to trial and she won a $1,125,000 jury verdict -- $375,000 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages.

In April 2005, Ronald Cedillos, an Orange County reserve sheriff's deputy, allegedly got into a shouting match at a Newport Beach restaurant with attorney Joe Cavallo. Later, Cedillos allegedly used a key to scratch Cavallo's Bentley automobile.  Michael Madigan, a private investigator who operates TwistedBadge.com, a site with the motto "our mission is to promote public awareness of the need to be vigilant in matters involving law enforcement malfeasance," reported the incident.

On May 31, 2005, Madigan received a letter from Cedillos’ attorney demanding a retraction. After Madigan refused to retract the story, Cedillos then filed a defamation action. Madigan responded with a special motion to dismiss under California's anti-SLAPP statute.

On June 22, 2007, a California appellate court affirmed the dismissal.