Nadia Naffe accused a colleague of sexual assault and filed a criminal harassment complaint. John Patrick Frey, a Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County, raised questions about plaintiff's allegations on his blog and Twitter account which he maintained in his personal capacity. Naffe sued Frey, his wife, the former District Attorney for Los Angeles County and Los Angeles County under the theory that the defendant was acting in his official capacity as Deputy District Attorney while writing on his private blog, and that his actions violated her First Amendment and due process rights.

In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Naffe asserted the following causes of action:

1. violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
2. public disclosure invasion of privacy
3. false light invasion of privacy
4. defamation
5. intentional infliction of emotional distress
6. negligence
7. negligent supervision

Naffe subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint naming only Frey and the County as defendant. Frey moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, both for failure to state a claim (as to counts 1-6) and for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims (counts 2-7); the County filed its own motion to dismiss and also joined Frey's motions. Frey also filed a special motion to dismiss the state law claims under California's anti-SLAPP law. Naffe opposed all four motions.

In a tentative ruling (later confirmed), the district court found that it did not have independent subject matter jurisdiction over Naffe's state law claims because she had not sufficiently demonstrated a claim for relief exceeding the sum of $75,000. Accordingly, the court focused on whether Naffe had properly asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The court held that to state a claim under Section 1983, Naffe was required to allege facts sufficient to show that Frey's action related in some meaningful way either to his governmental status or to the performance of his duties, but found that Naffe had merely offered allegations that were conclusory or speculative. The court further held that merely "mentioning the fact that [Frey] [wa]s a deputy district attorney or prosecutor... does not transform everything he says on his blog or on Twitter into state action." Accordingly, the court dismissed Naffe's Section 1983 claim without leave to amend and dismissed her state law claims without prejudice. The court did not address the merits of Frey's anti-SLAPP motion.

Naffe appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In her appellate brief, Naffe focused on a comment Frey had made on his twitter account, in which he states: "@NadiaNaffe My first task is learning what criminal statutes, if any, you have admitted violating." Naffe interprets this tweet to be a threat by a state prosecutor to investigate her for alleged criminal violations and offers it as evidence that her allegations are not merely speculative. Frey, in his appellee's brief, responded that such musings could not be deemed an official act, and that the factual context proves that the comment had nothing to do with anything over which a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney such as Frey could have jurisdiction.

The Digital Media Law Project ("DMLP") filed an amicus brief in support of Frey arguing that there are over 20 million Americans working for the government and that, even when those individuals speak on matters that relate to government activity, their ability to speak in their personal capacities must be preserved in order to ensure that these individuals' valuable viewpoints are part of public discussion.

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. "

This case concerns the "Innocence of Muslims" video, which portrays the Prophet Muhammad in a highly offensive light and caused protests throughout the world in the fall of 2012.

Cindy Lee Garcia was an actress who appeared in the film. According to the complaint filed on September 19, 2012, Garcia was never informed during the production of the movie of the offensive and inflammatory nature of the film. According to the complaint, "Plaintiff was unaware of the vile content contained in the Film, as the content and overall purpose of the Film was concealed from them at all times . . . ." The complaint further claims that Garcia has received death threats because of the film, was fired from her job, and has been informed by her family that she is no longer permitted to see her grandchildren.

The complaint alleges invasion of privacy under the California Constitution, false light, violation of California's right of publicity statute, violation of California's unfair competition law, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. As against defendant Nakoula and 50 doe defendants allegedly associated with Nakoula, Garcia also alleges fraud and slander. Garcia also sought a temporary restraining order blocking distribution of the film.

On September 20, 2012, the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County denied the temporary restraining order, finding a lack of likely success on the merits.

According to the docket (search for case BC492358) plaintiff Garcia filed a request for dismissal without prejudice, which was granted on September 25, 2012.

Update:

On September 26, 2012, Garcia filed a federal complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, re-alleging fraud, unfair business practices, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendant Nakoula and the doe defendants allegedly associated with Nakoula. Garcia also alleges copyright infringement as against all defendants, claiming that Nakoula's contract never addressed copyright ownership, and her performance in the film vested her with a copyright interest in the film. Garcia notes in the complaint that she filed five DMCA "takedown" notices to YouTube on September 24th and 25th, which were not acted upon by the time of the complaint's filing.

On October 17, 2012, Garcia filed an application for a temporary restraining order to take down the video on YouTube. Garcia again argued that her performance was independently copyrightable from the Innocence of Muslims film, and that neither Nakoula nor YouTube had a license to use the performance. Garcia cites the recently-signed WIPO Audiovisual Performances Treaty for this proposition (which is currently in the ratification process) and statements made by the United States Patent and Trademark Office suggesting that actors are currently treated as authors under copyright law. Garcia filed a request for judicial notice with the statements from the USPTO.

On October 18, 2012 the court issued a minute order on Garcia's application, rejecting an ex parte ruling on the injunction and transforming the application to a motion for a preliminary injunction. The court ordered any opposition briefs from the defendants to be filed by October 29, and a reply filed by November 5, before a hearing scheduled for November 19, 2012.

On October 19, 2012, Occupy Los Angeles moved to intervene in the case, in support of the plaintiff. The court denied this motion in a minute order on November 15th.

On October 29, 2012, Google and YouTube filed an opposition brief against a preliminary injunction. Google and YouTube argued that Garcia's brief appearance in the film does not vest her with any copyright interest, and that the lawsuit is a plain attempt to censor the video because of its offensiveness. Google and YouTube also filed an opposition to the request for judicial notice of certain factual circumstances around the film and the USPTO's opinions regarding the WIPO treaty.

On November 5, 2012, Garcia filed a reply to Google and YouTube's opposition to the preliminary injunction. Garcia argued that denial of authorship rights to actors in films contravenes the custom and practice of the film industry, and that First Amendment concerns should not be addressed, due to lack of state action.

On November 28, 2012, Timothy Alger, attorney for defendants Google and YouTube, filed a declaration wherein he stated that he had obtained a copy of a copyright and likeness release filled out by Garcia in relation to this film, which assigns any copyright interest in her performance to Nakoula. After Garcia's attorney expressed doubts as to the authenticity of this document, Alger went to Nakoula (who is referred to in this document by his alternative name, "Mark Basseley Youssef") who signed his own declaration stating that Garcia signed this release.

On November 29, 2012, Garcia filed a request to cross examine both Nakoula and Alger. Google and YouTube filed an opposition to this request on November 30th. The court denied the request to cross examine on the same day, noting that the declarations would not be used for disposition of the pending motion for preliminary injunction. On the same day Garcia filed a request to strike the two declarations, accompanied by a declaration by James Blanco, a handwriting analyst, who concluded based on comparison of specimen handwriting samples that Garcia is not the person who signed the copyright and personality release.

Also on November 30th, the court issued a minute order denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that Garcia was unlikely to be able to prove success on the merits of her copyright claim, as the Ninth Circuit case Aalmuhammed v. Lee would suggest that she should not be considered the author of the final film, and to the extent that a copyright interest could be found in the performance it is likely that Garcia gave Nakoula an implied license under the Ninth Circuit case Effects Associates v. Cohen.

On December 21, 2012, Garcia filed a notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit's scheduling order has appellant briefs due January 18, 2013, with appellee's brief due February 15, 2013, or 28 days after service of the appellant's brief.