Deep Blue Marine, its CEO Wilf Blum, and Alexander Lindale LLC sued former Deep Blue operations manager Edward Krajewski after Krajewski criticized the plaintiffs and allegedly disclosed Deep Blue proprietary information on several online investor forums. The plaintiffs sought an injunction in Utah federal court against Krajewski to prevent him from posting any further criticism or materials. They also brought claims for defamation, false light, intentional interference with economic advantage, breach of contract (including publication of trade secrets), and breach of convenant of good faith.

In May 2008, Deep Blue moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Krajewski. The court decided the motion ex parte after satisfying itself that Krajewski had received notice of the hearing. It granted the motion, issuing an order prohibiting Krajewski from

In July 2008, Krajewski, acting pro se, filed a motion for an extension of time to file a brief. He also submitted an affidavit explaining that he lacked sufficient financial resources to litigate the case in Utah and requesting that the court transfer the case to Pennsylvania, his home state. On July 22, the court denied the motion for an extension of time to file a brief, noting that Krajewski did not identify what motion he would be addressing and that no motions were currently pending. The court added that Krajewski could inititiate a motion and file a brief in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules.

Update:

1/15/2009 - Action dismissed without prejudice subject to parties' settlement agreement  

Jan Kruska sued several anti-pedophile organizations, including Perverted Justice Foundation, Inc. ("PJFI"), and individuals affliliated with those organizations, as well as domain registrar GoDaddy.com and social networking site MySpace.com, after the organizations accused Kruska of being a predator, a pedophile, and pro-pedophile on various websites, including JanKruska.com and JanKruska.net. Kruska sued for defamation, copyright infringement, cyberstalking and harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") in Arizona federal court.

In August 2007, self-described journalist Kruska began to receive what she described as "venomous" emails after she criticized the overbreadth of anti-pedophile laws. Soon after, the Absolute Zero United blog and PJFI's Wikisposure and Corporate Sex Offender websites posted accusations that Kruska was a convicted child molester and a pedophile, according to the complaint. The defendants allegedly posted similar accusations on MySpace.com, as well as on websitesJanKruska.com and JanKruska.net, both of which were registered byFilmax.com through GoDaddy.com. Some of the websites also allegedly posted personal information about Kruska, including her address, and photographs of Kruska that she says are copyrighted. In addition, Barbara Ochoa, aka Petra Luna, allegedly organized a protest targeting publishers of Kruska's writing, which Kruska said resulted in her articles being taken down. Further, Ochoa allegedly emailed Kruska, demanding Kruska remove her "entire web presence" or else face a "full scale activist attack" against her.

Kruska filed her complaint in January 2008. It sought damages and a preliminary injunction, barring thedefendants from "disseminating claims that [Kruska] is a 'Predator', 'Child Molester', 'Child Abuser', 'Pedophile', and 'Pro-Pedophile' bypostings on the internet, mass mailings, e-mails to friends, relatives,employers, business associates, among others; or otherwise by any othermeans making such suggestions."

In response, GoDaddy.com, Ochoa, and PJFI all moved to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds. In April 2008, Kruska voluntarily dropped her claims against MySpace.com. In June 2008, the court granted Ochoa's motion to dismiss, but gave leave to Kruska to amend her complaint against Ochoa, which she did. In July 2008, the court granted GoDaddy.com's motion to dismiss on the ground that CDA 230 precluded liability. The court also seems to have dismissed trademark claims against GoDaddy on CDA 230 grounds, which Eric Goldman notes is unusual.

Update

6/12/2009 - The court denied  Butler's new motion for summary judgment pending discovery.

8/7/2009 - Kruska moved for summary judgment on her copyright infringement claims against Von Erck and PJF.  She claimed any arguments for fair use failed as a matter of law.

8/28/2009 - Von Erck and PJF answered Kruska's complaint with affirmative defenses including a First Amendment defense, fair use, lack of damages, and a lack of personal jurisdiction.

9/22/2009 - The court denied Brocious' motion to dismiss Kruska's amended complaint.  

10/13/2009 - The court denied Kruska's motion for summary judgment on her copyright claims pending discovery.

11/18/2010 - Court issued order granting in part and denying in part Christopher Brocious' Motion to Dismiss and denying Brocious' Motion for Summary Judgment. 

In March 2007, Thomas Evans, a deputy sheriff in the San Diego County Sheriff's Department, sued his former wife, Linda Evans, and her mother, Shirley Preddy, for defamation, harassment, invasion of privacy, and other claims. After Thomas and Linda Evans divorced in 2002, they engaged in a bitter dispute in family court over custody of their child, child support, and other issues. Thomas filed a separate lawsuit in California court after Linda and her mother allegedly posted false statements about him on various Internet websites and filed two written complaints with his employer. Thomas also alleged that Linda and Preddy published information from his medical and financial records on the Internet.

The trial court granted Thomas a preliminary injunction that prohibited Linda and Preddy from: (1) publishing "false and defamatory statements" about Thomas on the Internet; (2) publishing "confidential personal information" about Thomas on the Internet; and (3) contacting Thomas's employer regarding Thomas except to call 911 to report criminal conduct. Linda appealed, and the appellate court reversed the ruling of the district court. It held that the preliminary injunction was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, and that it was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On the issue of Linda's alleged publication of Thomas's private information, the appellate court instructed the lower court to identify precisely what information Thomas seeks to protect and to balance his privacy rights (and the safety issues involved in disclosing personal information about a police officer) against the free-speech interests in publication.

Sometime before the appellate court ruled on the appeal, Thomas dismissed Preddy from the case, leaving Linda as the only defendant.

Maria Garrido and William Krasnansky are spouses involved in divorce proceedings before a Vermont family court. Mr. Krasnansky wrote a "thinly-disguised, fictionalized account" of the end of their marriage on his blog, LookAtMyPugs's Jurnull. On the blog, Krasnansky also published excerpts from Garrido's diary that he had found after she moved out of their home. On December 7, 2007, Garrido filed a motion for immediate relief before the family court judge, and the court ordered Krasnansky to take down "any and all Internet postings" about his wife and their marriage pending a hearing scheduled for the following month.

Krasnansky then filed a motion to "dismiss" Garrido's motion for relief and to vacate the December 7 order, primarily on grounds that it was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. On January 14, 2008, the court vacated its previous order, holding that Krasnansky's blog did not constitute harassment and that the previous order had violated his First Amendment rights. The court also held that it did not have jurisdiction to decide whether any statements on the blog were defamatory. The court indicated, however, that it could bar Krasnansky's unauthorized use of Garrido's diary because it was property (intellectual and tangible) under the jurisdiction of the court, although it acknowledged that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a federal copyright claim.

In a related incident, Garrido's lawyer sent a C&D to Derek Bambauer, a legal blogger who had written about the case. (See the CMLP database entry, Garrido v. Bambauer, for details.)

Christy Lochrie is a local journalist and blogger for The Record Searchlight in Redding, California. She authors a blog for the newspaper called "Phat & Pink." Lochrie's former friend Beth Norby created a "local media watch-dog blog" entitled "No Phat Pink Chicks" that criticizes and mocks Lochrie.

Lochrie filed a lawsuit in California state court and sought a restraining order against Norby and requested that Norby be forced to shut down her blog and cease blogging about her. The court denied Lochrie's requests on First Amendment grounds. Gibson acknowledged that Norby's blog was "rude and boorish" but said that it did not constitute harrassment and was protected as free speech under the First Amendment. Norby requested an award of attorney's fees following the decision, which the court denied on grounds that Norby's comments "brought this on."

Anne Grant maintains a blog, The Custody Scam, where she "writes about official actions that endanger children and parents trying to protect them." Grant used the blog to write about a child custody case involving minors "Sara Doe" and "Mary Doe" (pseudonyms). The blog criticized the manner in which the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) handled the Doe case. In particular, Grant objected to the DCYF hearing officer's reliance on a theory known as "parental alienation syndrome" to remove the two children from their mother's custody and to place one of them with the father, who had previously been accused of sexually abusing them -- charges that the DCYF held to be unfounded. While the blog entries did not reveal the minors' identities, they did include personal information and photographs of the children.

The family court judge handling the Doe case ordered DCYF to "advise" Grant to remove "any and all written and pictoral information" relating to the children involved, and to "cease publication of the blog as it pertains to these children."

Grant objected to the order and sought to have the Rhode Island Supreme Court vacate it. In her petition, Grant argued that the family court's order violated her due process rights and was an overbroad restraint on her speech. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case without providing an explanation for its refusal, but some speculate that the court refused to review the order because it was directed at DCYF, not Grant.

The Freecycle Network (TFN) is a nonprofit corporation that acts as a central administrative point for local recycling communities around the United States and operates a website at www.freecycle.org. It had been operating under this name since 2003, and in 2004 submitted a trademark application for the "The Freecycle Network" and "Freecycle" marks.

Tim Oey, a former volunteer at TFN became a vocal critic of TFN's attempt to trademark its name, expressing his view that "freecycle" had become a generic term and thus not an appropriate word to be protected by trademark .

On April 4, 2006, TFN filed a lawsuit against Oey, alleging trademark infringement. TFN argued that Oey's claims in various Yahoo! Groups that TFN did not own the "freecycle" trademark constituted trademark disparagement, and his encouraging others to freely use the term "freecycle" constituted contributory trademark infringement. TFN also sought relief under the Arizona common law actions of injurious falsehood, defamation, and intentional interference with business relationships.

The action caught the attention of academics, which came out to support Oey. Two amici curiae submissions were filed in the U.S. District Court of Arizona arguing in Oey's favor, and academic Eugene Volokh assisted Oey's lawyers as an adviser.

On April 24, 2006, the court granted TFN's request for a preliminary injunction, restraining Oey from communicating about the merits of TFNs claim of trademark ownership of the disputed terms.

Oey appealled to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the injunction was an "unjustified prior restraint on Oey's constitutional right to speak about TFN's efforts to trademark the word 'freecycle'." Oey's appellate brief also attacked the validity of TFN's trademark claims and common law claims.

On September 26, 2007, the Ninth Circuit overturned the injunction and remanded the case to the district court, holding that TFN's trademark infringement arguments failed on a number of bases, including that Oey's use of the marks was unlikely to constitute "use in commerce." The court also held that Oey was expressing an opinion about a putative trademark, and the Lanham Act does not restrain such behavior. It held further that trademark disparagement was not a valid action under the Lanham Act.

There has been no significant activity in the district court after remand.