Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
JAMES WOODS,
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT JOHN DOES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY
1328615.1
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff James Woods (Plaintiff) is abusing the court system to lash out at a
constitutionally protected political insult the very sort of insult he routinely uses himself.
Now, by this ex parte application, he seeks further to abuse this Courts processes to identify
an anonymous critic. The Court should deny it, or at a minimum set a briefing schedule so
that the important First Amendment issues presented can be briefed properly and resolved on
a full record, and so that Defendant John Doe (Mr. Doe) may file his anti-SLAPP motion.
10
11
12
employs insults like clown and scum, and even accuses others of drug use as a rhetorical
13
trope:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
But Plaintiff apparently believes that while he can say that sort of thing to others,
28
others cannot say it to him. He has sued Mr. Doe for a derisive tweet referring to him as
1
DEFENDANT JOHN DOES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY
1328615.1
cocaine addict James Woods still sniffing and spouting in the course of political back-and-
forth. Complaint at 9. He also complains, at length, that Mr. Doe has called him things
like a clown and scum. Naturally, Plaintiff has himself called others clown or scum
on Twitter.
Plaintiff now seeks early discovery allowing him to subpoena Twitter to obtain Mr.
Does identity. He tried once before; Twitter objected because the subpoena was
procedurally defective and did not give Mr. Doe notice. This Court should reject Plaintiffs
9
10
11
taken literally cannot be, and is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. In
12
13
hyperbole there Mr. Does statement cannot be taken as a factual assertion that
14
Plaintiff is a cocaine addict. Rather, Mr. Does tweet was part of a familiar
15
16
x Because Plaintiff cannot prove defamation, he is not entitled to pierce Mr. Does
17
anonymity. The First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously, and
18
prevents Plaintiff from using legal process to unmask an anonymous speaker when
19
he has no case.
x Plaintiff will be filing an anti-SLAPP motion on September 1, 2015, which will
20
21
22
23
24
Therefore, this Court should deny the ex parte application, or else set a briefing
25
26
//
27
28
DEFENDANT JOHN DOES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY
1328615.1
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.
4
5
information about what you find interesting. At the heart of Twitter are small bursts
of information called Tweets. Each Tweet is 140 characters in length.... Twitter users
may choose to follow other users. If user No. 1 decides to follow user No. 2,
10
Twitter messages (Tweets) posted by user No. 2 will show up on the home page of
11
user No. 1 where they can be read. (United States v. Cassidy, 814 F.Supp.2d 574, 576 (D.
12
Md. 2011).)
13
Plaintiff is a Twitter user under the name @realJamesWoods, and Mr. Doe is a
14
15
Twitter is known for hyperbole, overheated rhetoric, and ad hominem attacks. Its
16
notorious for spreading misinformation.1 Its known for being relentlessly insulting: the
17
Twitter universe is never happier than when it's being snarky, or downright nasty, to
18
someone.2
19
B.
20
21
22
23
1
24
25
26
27
28
New Scientist, Twitter Bots Grow Up and Take Over the World, July 30, 2014, retrieved from
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329804-000-twitter-bots-grow-up-and-take-onthe-world/
CNN.com, Study: Twitter Opinions Dont Match the Mainstream, March 4, 2013, retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/tech/social-media/twitter-reactions-public-opinion/.
3
Daily Beast, How James Woods Became Obamas Biggest Twitter Troll, December 31, 2014,
retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/31/how-james-woods-becameobama-s-biggest-twitter-troll.html.
DEFENDANT JOHN DOES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY
1328615.1
incorrect conservative voice on Twitter.4 He has suggested publicly on Twitter that his
vocal conservative advocacy will cost him work in Hollywood.5 Plaintiff has stated publicly
in Twitters culture of insipid insult, retweeting (that is, repeating so that his Twitter
Plaintiff enjoys rhetorical excess and insult himself. He calls people clown and
scum, notwithstanding that he complains about Mr. Doe saying those things to him.
(Exhibits E, F to White Decl.) He makes jokes about eating a sandwich rather than saving
drowning political figures he doesnt like (Exhibit G), and suggests that he wouldnt mind
10
killing people wearing shirts with offensive and incendiary messages. (Exhibit L.) He
11
responds to insult with insult; when a pundit called him a dick, he shot back Im not sure,
12
coming from him, if dick is a menu choice! Lol. (Exhibit J.) He forthrightly ridicules
13
opinions he doesnt like, such as Justice Anthony Kennedys statement gays ask for equal
14
dignity in the eyes of the law. (Exhibit K.) And, as is noted above, he has repeatedly used
15
16
//
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Daily Caller, James Woods: Ill Probably Never Work In That Town Again, October 9, 2013,
retrieved from http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/09/james-woods-ill-probably-never-work-inthat-town-again/#ixzz3k38zCMXD.
5
Woods, who recently appeared in White House Down and Jobs, was replying to a tweet that
questioned the wisdom of his outspoken declarations. "I don't expect to work again. I think
Barack Obama is a threat to the integrity and future of the Republic. My country first." The
Guardian, James Woods Claims Hollywood Is Against Him After Anti-Obama Tweets,
retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/oct/10/james-woods-tweets-barackobama.
6
Twitch.com, For the Record: James Woods Explains Why Hes Giving Up on The MSM and
Sticking To Twitter, October 11, 2013, retrieved from http://twitchy.com/2013/10/11/for-therecord-james-woods-explains-why-hes-giving-up-on-the-msm-and-sticking-to-twitter/.
7
Twitchy.com, Unending Stream of Mindless Bile: James Woods Retweets Liberal Followers,
August 8, 2014, retrieved from http://twitchy.com/2014/08/08/unending-stream-of-mindlessbile-james-woods-retweets-liberal-followers/.
DEFENDANT JOHN DOES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY
1328615.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Perhaps because hes so consistently combative, or perhaps because hes played the
10
role of drug users in his movie career, James Woods is on cocaine has become a Twitter
11
in-joke or meme. There are many examples of this joke being levied against him before Mr.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT JOHN DOES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY
1328615.1
C.
Plaintiff complains that Mr. Doe has used childish name-calling against him, and
has used derogatory terms such as prick, joke, ridiculous, scum, and clown-boy.
Complaint at 8. However, even Plaintiff does not seem to suggest those insults are
actionable. Rather, Plaintiff complains that Mr. Doe called him cocaine addict James
Woods still sniffing and spouting. Mr. Doe did use words to that effect. They were part of
an exchange of rhetorical hyperbole and insult consistent with Twitter culture and employing
the known cocaine meme or in-joke levied at Plaintiff. (Exhibit N to White Decl.) As is
set forth below, no rational person familiar with the context could take them to be a serious
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Mr. Doe has informed Plaintiff that he will be filing an anti-SLAPP motion by
27
September 1st; Plaintiff responded by noticing this ex parte application. (White Decl. at .)
28
Previously Plaintiff attempted to subpoena Mr. Does identity from Twitter; Twitter
6
DEFENDANT JOHN DOES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY
1328615.1
responded with objections, pointing out that Plaintiffs subpoena was defective in multiple
respects. (Exhibits A, B to White Decl.) Twitter has indicated that, in the event this Court
permits Plaintiff to issue a new subpoena, it will object to it and potentially seek to quash it.
III.
ARGUMENT
This Court should deny the ex parte application, or at a minimum set a briefing
schedule for full briefing of the request. Because Plaintiff seeks to pierce the anonymity of
an online speaker, he must make a prima facie case of defamation. He cant, because the
10
expression he complains of is plainly insult and hyperbole, not a provable false statement of
11
fact. Therefore, Plaintiff isnt entitled to the subpoena. Moreover, discovery will be stayed
12
13
A.
14
This Court should deny this ex parte application because Mr. Doe has a First
15
Amendment right to anonymous speech. Under well-established California law, the Court
16
should not allow Plaintiff to use legal process to pierce that anonymity unless he can
17
18
Both the California Constitution and the U.S. Constitution afford Mr. Doe a right to
19
privacy and anonymity. (Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.Ap.4th
20
21
Both California courts and federal courts have recognized the value in
22
extending the protections afforded anonymous speech to speech made via the
23
*229 Internet. (See generally Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997)
24
521 U.S. 844, 870, 117 S.Ct. 2329 [138 L.Ed.2d 874, 117 S.Ct. 2329]; Krinsky
25
26
pseudonymous screen name offers a safe outlet for the user to experiment with
27
28
DEFENDANT JOHN DOES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY
1328615.1
speak ones mind on the Internet without the burden of the other party
knowing all the facts about ones identity can foster open communication and
10
require more than a request. They require a showing of compelling need that outweighs the
11
the privacy right involved. Digital Music News LLC, 226 Cal.App.4th at 229-230. In the
12
context of defamation actions against anonymous internet speakers, California courts require
13
14
Internet Service Provider. (Krinsky, 159 Cal.App.4th at 245-46.) If the Plaintiff cant do that
15
for instance, because the complained-of language is internet hyperbole, not a statement of
16
17
Plaintiff cannot make a prima facie case because as is discussed below the
18
19
20
B.
21
22
statement of fact. Only provably false statements of fact can be defamatory; insults,
23
hyperbole, and loose and figurative expressions of opinion cannot be. (See, e.g., Paterno
24
v. Superior Court (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1356.) Mr. Does cocaine addict tweet a
25
clear reference to the Twitter in-joke about Plaintiff cannot be taken as a statement of fact,
26
27
//
28
DEFENDANT JOHN DOES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY
1328615.1
Case after case has recognized that speech on internet forums like Twitter is likely to
be viewed as opinion or hyperbole, not fact. Thats particularly true when the statements are
In Krinsky, the court found that posts on a Yahoo! Finance board that accused the
plaintiff of misconduct using terms like mega scum bag and cockroach were
comprehend the harsh language and belligerent tone as anything more than an
irrational, vituperative expression of contempt for the three officers of SFBC and
their supporters. (159 Cal.App.4th 1175-76.) (noting that debate or criticism often
10
11
12
numerous authorities for the proposition that online blogs and message boards are
13
places where readers expect to see strongly worded opinions rather than objective
14
15
statement is taken as fact or bluster, the court must consider how someone familiar
16
with the context would view them: Rogerss statements must be viewed from the
17
perspective of the average reader of an Internet site such as Craigslists Rants and
18
Raves, not the Bank or a banking expert who might view them as conveying
19
20
21
lovers rant on a review site called Ripoff Report was non-actionable opinion.
22
Because the defendants statements were made on Internet Web sites which
23
plainly invited the sort of exaggerated and insulting criticisms of businesses and
24
individuals which occurred here, the defendants statements that plaintiff picks
25
up street walkers and homeless drug addicts and is a dead beat dad would be
26
27
at 1149.)
28
DEFENDANT JOHN DOES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY
1328615.1
Twitter. But here, there were no factors that would suggest that the @abelisted tweet was
meant to be a statement of fact instead of mere Twitter bluster. (Bently Reserve L.P. v.
Papaliolios (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 418, 433-34 [reviewing factors that might make internet
speech factual].) It was not labeled as a fact. The @abelisted account did not suggest any
factual basis for the insult, nor any way that @abelisted could know it. There were no
indicia that @abelisted was some sort of reliable reporter on such issues. It was not
surrounded by factual statements. It wasnt made by a known person; rather, it was said
anonymously, which California courts recognize make it even less likely to be viewed as a
10
statement of fact by readers. (Krinsky, 159 Cal.App.4th at 1162; Summit Bank, 206
11
Cal.App.4th at 697.) It wasnt professionally uttered, but was part of a series of tweets with
12
questionable diction, grammar, and construction. In short, every possibly factor pointed to
13
14
Plaintiff, through his conduct and Complaint, provides the best arguments for Mr.
15
Does insult being non-factual. Plaintiff places the tweet squarely in the context of a
16
17
expression thats protected opinion rather than actionable fact. Moreover, by suggesting
18
people he disagrees with are smoking crack (Exhibits C, D), that hed rather eat a sandwich
19
than save two liberal politicians from drowning (Exhibit G) , and that hed like to kill a man
20
for wearing a hideously offensive 9/11 shirt (Exhibit L), Plaintiff has demonstrated that he
21
knows perfectly well that this sort of rhetoric is not to be taken at face value. (These are
22
but a few examples; there are many, many more.) He has demonstrated that this lawsuit is
23
24
Plaintiff cant show a false statement of provable fact, so he cant make a prima facie
25
case of defamation. Nor can he make a prima facie case for his second cause of action of
26
False Light Invasion of Privacy. First, that claim is defective when combined with a
27
defamation claim based on the same facts. When an action for libel is alleged, a false-light
28
claim based on the same facts (as in this case) is superfluous and should be dismissed.
10
DEFENDANT JOHN DOES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY
1328615.1
(McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 961, 965.)
Moreover, if a defamation claim cannot succeed, nor can a false light claim on the same
Plaintiff cant make a prima facie case on either claim, and isnt entitled to pierce Mr.
Does anonymity.
C.
could not be resolved by August 31, 2015; Plaintiffs response was to rush to court ex parte
10
Mr. Does anti-SLAPP motion, which he will file September 1, will automatically
11
stay all discovery. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 425.16(g).) Plaintiff may make a noticed motion
12
for discovery to help him carry his burden of proof. (Id.) But if Plaintiff is looking for
13
discovery to pierce Mr. Does anonymity, that motion should fail. Section 425.16(g)
14
discovery may only be permitted to the extent it allows a plaintiff of carrying its burden of
15
showing a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Discovery that is not directly relevant to
16
the legal defense Mr. Doe is asserting is not permitted. (Blanchard v. DIRECTV, Inc.
17
(2004)123 Cal. App. 4th 903, 922, 2; Taheri Law Group v. Evans (2008) 160 Cal. App. 4th
18
482, 492493.) Mr. Does identity has nothing to do with his defense that his tweet is
19
20
D.
21
22
vindicate his First Amendment rights. Mr. Does counsel prepared this brief without the
23
benefit of seeing the application and does not know exactly what arguments or evidence
24
Plaitniff will bring to bear. The issues presented here are too important to be resolved ex
25
parte.
26
//
27
28
11
DEFENDANT JOHN DOES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY
1328615.1