Naji A. Alkateeb and Deanna R. Wilson-Alkateeb filed a "John Doe" lawsuit in federal district court in New York in May 2005. According to court documents, several anonymous Internet users(using Google and Hushmail email addresses) allegedly postedinsulting comments, threats, and personal information related to theAlkateebs on the forum sections of two websites: TheKnot.com and Photobucket.com. Certain unknown defendants also allegedly sent defamatory emails to third parties, including the plaintiffs' extended family. The Alkateebs sued for defamation, invasion of privacy (through publication of private facts), and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

After filing suit, the Alkateebs subpoeanaed The Knot, Photobucket, Google, and Hushmail for information that would reveal the identities of the anonymous posters. Three anonymous defendants received notice of the subpoena and moved to quash, and Public Citizen filed an amicus brief, in which it argued that the First Amendment protected the defendants' right to speak anonymously. Public Citizen also argued that the plaintiffs had not shown that jurisdiction was proper either in federal court or in New York. Apparently the court allowed some of the subpoenas to issue.

The Alkateebs filed an amended complaint in September 2005, in which they named the Knot, Inc. and four individuals as defendants. On Jan 31, 2006, the Alkateebs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the complaint without prejudice. The court granted the motion as to all defendants except the defendants who had already moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. When the plaintiffs did not respond within thirty days to the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the court dismissed the lawsuit against the final three defendants with prejudice.

On February 6, 2008, Julius Baer Bank and Trust Company, a Cayman Islands banking entity, filed suit in federal court in California against Wikileaks, which is developing an "uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis." Two days later, the bank and its Swiss parent company filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin Wikileaks from publishing or distributing copies of documents the plaintiffs claim contain "stolen or otherwise wrongfully obtained confidential and protected bank files and records."

On February 15, 2008, the court issued what it captioned as an "Order Granting Permanent Injunction." This order, which appears to be the result of a stipulation between the plaintiffs and Dynadot, Wikileaks' domain name registrar and web host, required that Dynadot immediately disable the entire wikileaks.org domain name and account and remove all DNS hosting records.

Later that same day, the court issued an Amended Temporary Restraining Order that enjoins Wikileaks and and "all others who receive notice of this order" from "displaying, posting, publishing, distributing, or linking to . . . all documents and information originating from [the plaintiffs' banks] which are internal non-public company documents and/or which contains private client or customer bank records."

As of February 28, 2008, the Wikileaks.org domain is still down, but the organization issued a press release through one of its mirror sites:

Transparency group Wikileaks forcibly censored at ex-parte Californian hearing -- ordered to print blank pages -- 'wikileaks.org' name forcibly deleted from Californian domain registrar -- the best justice Cayman Islands money launderers can buy?

When the transparency group Wikileaks was censored in China last year, no-one was too surprised. After all, the Chinese government also censors the Paris based Reporters Sans Frontiers and New York Based Human Rights Watch. And when Wikileaks published the secret censorship lists of Thailand's military Junta, no-one was too surprised when people in that country had to go to extra lengths to read the site. But on Friday the 15th, February 2008, in the home of the free and the land of the brave, and a constitution which states "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press", the Wikileaks.org press was shutdown.

On February 28, Julius Baer issued a press release stating:

It is not and has never been Julius Baer's intention to stifle anyone's right to free speech. Indeed, Julius Baer has specifically made no attempt to remove material on the website which refers to the organization but which does not include information personal to its customers. However, Julius Baer denies the authenticity of this material and wholly rejects the serious and defamatory allegations which it contains.

Updates:

The court has scheduled a hearing on the injunction for February 29, 2008 at 9:00AM.

2/26/08 - Coalition of media companies filed an Amici Curiae brief primarily addressing the issue of prior restraints

2/26/08 - ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a motion to intervene

2/26/08 - Public Citizen and the California First Amendment Coalition filed a motion to intervene that argues that the court did not have jurisdiction in the case, and therefore had no power to issue the injunctions

2/28/08 - Plaintiffs filed opposition to the motions by Amici and potential intervenors

2/28/08 - John Shipton, the owner of the wikileaks.org domain, filed a Notice of Intent to Appear and Joinder in Motions & Oppositions of Amici/Intervenors

2/28/08 - Daniel Mathews, a user of the site who was served with the TRO by the plaintiffs, filed a Memorandum in Opposition to TRO, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent Injunction

2/29/08 - Court held hearing on the TRO; judge vacated the Permanent Injunction against Dynadot and tentatively denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

2/29/08 - Court issued Order Denying Motion For Preliminary Injunction; Dissolving Permanent Injunction; and Setting Briefing and Hearing Schedule

3/5/08 - Plaintiff banks filed a notice of dismissal, without prejudice, as to all parties

James Buss, a high school teacher in Wisconsin, anonymously posted a comment on the Boots and Sabers blog under the name "Observer." In the comment, Buss stated that high teacher salaries made him sick and appeared to praise the Columbine High School shooters, stating, "They knew how to deal with the overpaid teacher union thugs. One shot at a time!" Because Buss is a former president of the teacher's union, in hindsight there is good reason to believe that the comment was tongue-in-cheek and intended to ridicule the conservative point of view on teacher salaries.

School officials viewed the anonymous comment as a threat and notified the police. The police traced the comment back to Buss and arrested him. He spent an hour in prison and was released on $350 bail. The school district also suspended him from his teaching job. The local district attorney considered charging Buss with disorderly conduct and unlawful use of computerized communications systems under Wisconsin law. The district attorney ultimately determined, however, that Buss's comment was protected speech under the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions because it did did not incite imminent lawless action.

In February 2008, Donald and Terry Keller Swartz sued three anonymous defendants for defamation and invasion of privacy in a Tennessee state court. The Swartzes are a prominent couple in Old Hickory, Tennessee, where they buy and restore real estate, manage rental properties, and operate a halfway house for recovering substance abusers. They are also active in local politics and the Old Hickory Village Neighborhood Association.

In September 2007, an anonymous person created the Stop Swartz blog, which criticizes the Swartzes' real estate activties and other aspects of their personal and political lives. According to the Swartzes' complaint, the blog's author (Doe #1) and an anonymous accomplice (Doe #2) posted false and defamatory statements about them on the blog, including statements accusing them of committing arson, evicting renters "without a moments notice," and failing to record property sales in a local registry. Additionally, the complaint alleges that Does #1 and #2 invaded Terry Keller Swartz's privacy by re-publishing a statement posted anonymously on Craigslist.org (by Doe #3) that revealed that she was an "ex-addict."

Finally, the Swartzes claim that a posting on Stop Swartz invaded their privacy by encouraging readers to stalk them. According to the complaint, the post read:

When you see a Swartz, no matter how trivial it may seem, leave a comment. Extra points if you observe them outside the village. This serves two purposes: First, it helps us all to keep tabs on Don and Terry and to know what they are up to. Second, it sends a clear message to Don and Terry that their actions are not being ignored . . . . We will tolerate their crap no longer.

The complaint requests an unspecified amount of of compensatory and punitive damages. The Swartzes' lawyer told Tennessean.com that he intends to subpoena Google -- the owner of Blogger, which hosts Stop Swartz -- to uncover the identity of the blog's author.

Update:

09/18/08 - John Doe 1 moved to quash a subpoena the Swartzes issued to Google, Inc. seeking the identity of the anonymous blogger behind Stop Swartz.

11/3/08 - The Swartzes responded to the motion to quash.

3/13/09 - The court heard oral argument on the motion to quash and ruled that it would follow the standard set forth in Dendrite International v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. Div. 2001) and cited with approval in  Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 2009 WL 484956 (Md. Feb. 27, 2009). The court gave the Swartzes permission to amend their complaint and instructed John Doe 1 to file a motion to dismiss the complaint and/or to have the court perform First Amendment balancing under Dendrite. (A video of the hearing is available here.)

5/27/09 - Doe filed a motion to dismiss and to balance First Amendment rights.

08/13/09 - Swartz filed a response to the motion.

10/08/09 - The court granted in part and denied in part Doe's motion to dismiss and denied Doe's motion to quash.  The court also ruled that the issue was appropriate for interlocutory appeal.

Lisa Krinsky, the former president, chief operating officer, and chairman of the board of SFBC International, Inc., a Florida company, sued ten anonymous defendants over comments about her posted to a Yahoo! message board. According to court papers, the anonymous forum posters made "scathing verbal attacks" against SFBC, Krinsky, and fellow corporate officers. (For juicy details, see Ars Technica's article on the case.)

Krinsky filed a lawsuit in Florida state court in January 2006 (the exact date is uncertain), alleging defamation and intentional interference with contractual relations. She served a subpoena on Yahoo! in California, seeking the identities of the anonymous forum posters. After Yahoo! notified the posters, one of them -- Doe 6 -- filed a motion to quash the subpoena in California state court. The court denied the motion to quash, noting (quite strangely) that Doe 6's conduct "appeared to be similar to federal cases involving "'pump and dump' stock manipulation efforts," although no claim to that effect was in Krinsky's complaint.

In February 2008, a California appellate court reversed the lower court's ruling. It held that Internet users have a First Amendment right to engage in anonymous speech, but this right must be balanced against a plaintiff's legitimate interest in pursuing a valid legal claim based on constitutionally unprotected speech, such as defamation. In striking this balance, the court rejected the "good faith" standard applied in In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to America Online, 2000 WL 1210372 (Vir. Cir. Ct. Jan. 31, 2000), indicating that this test "offers no practical, reliable way to determine the plaintiff's good faith and leaves the speaker with little protection." The court also declined to apply the test devised in Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005), arguing that the "summary judgment" terminology used in that case is "unnecessary and potentially confusing."

Instead, the court adopted a test that requires a plaintiff to make a "prima facie showing" that he or she has a valid legal claim against the anonymous speaker before allowing disclosure of the speaker's identity. The court made it clear that a prima facie showing required Krinsky to bring forward evidence (not just allegations) to support each element of her defamation and interference with contract claims, except for those elements that were beyond her control or dependent on the identity of the defendant.

Applying this standard, the court held that Krinsky had not made a prima facie showing on her defamation claim because the message board comments, viewed in context, constituted opinion protected by the First Amendment rather than statements of fact about Krinsky. The court further held that Krinsky could not make a prima facie showing on her interference with contract claim because this claim was based on the same constitutionally protected opinion.

Nam Tai Electronics, Inc., a Hong Kong-based electronics company, sued 51 "John Doe" defendants in California state court for libel, trade libel, and violations of California's unfair business practices statute.  The lawsuit revolved around negative comments about Nam Tai posted to a Yahoo! message board pertaining to Nam Tai. 

After filing the complaint, Nam Tai obtained a subpoena in California directing Yahoo! to disclose its subscriber data (IP address) for "scovey2," one of the anonymous forum posters.  Based on this information, Nam Tai determined that "scovey2" obtained his Internet access through AOL.   Nam Tai then obtained a "commission" for out-of-state discovery from the California court to depose AOL's custodian of records in Virginia, in order to seek identifying information for "scovey2."  Nam Tai asked a Virginia state trial court to issue a subpoena, and AOL moved to quash the subpoena. 

The trial court denied AOL's motion to quash, concluding that it would enforce the California "commission" and reasoning that First Amendment concerns implicated by the libel and trade libel claims were not implicated by the California unfair business practices claim.  The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, relying heavily on the principle of "comity" (that is, the respect states extend to the judgments of other states).  

The record is not clear regarding what happened in California court after the poster's identity was revealed.