Watson v. NY Doe 1

Background

In January 2018, an anonymous Instagram post accused Ralph M. Watson of sexual misconduct. Watson alleged that he was terminated from his position at Crispin, Porter & Bogusky as a result. The account was operated by “Diet Madison Avenue,” an anonymous internet group that said its purpose was to expose sexual harassment and discrimination in advertising agencies.

Watson filed a California state-court action for defamation and related torts against Diet Madison Avenue and alleged affiliated individuals. He later filed the federal action in the Southern District of New York against certain individuals, alleging defamation and other common-law torts. The federal court dismissed most of his claims, leaving certain defamation claims against Illinois Doe 1 and NY Doe 2 and a tortious-interference-with-contract claim against NY Doe 2. Diet Madison Avenue itself and DMA Doe were not defendants in that federal action.

Watson later subpoenaed GoFundMe for information about people who created, maintained, or received funds from the “Diet Madison Avenue Legal Defense” account. The subpoena sought names and contact information, including addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and internet protocol addresses. Watson said he wanted to use the information to pursue his defamation claims. DMA Doe, a non-party, moved to quash the subpoena, meaning to have the court block or cancel it. A magistrate judge granted that motion, and Watson objected.

Legal standard

Because the subpoena ruling concerned a nondispositive discovery matter, the district court could modify or set aside the magistrate judge’s order only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court explained that magistrate judges have broad discretion over discovery disputes and that the party seeking reversal carries a heavy burden.

The court applied a five-factor test used when a subpoena seeks to identify an anonymous internet user. The factors ask whether the requesting party has shown a plausible actionable claim, whether the request is specific, whether other ways of obtaining the information are unavailable, whether the information is needed to advance the claim, and whether the anonymous person has a privacy expectation protected by the First Amendment.

The court’s analysis

The court agreed with the magistrate judge on all five factors:

1. Plausible actionable claim. Watson suggested that the information might support a conspiracy claim or a defamation claim. The court noted that it had already dismissed his conspiracy claims and found no plausible basis connecting someone involved with the GoFundMe account to NY Doe 2’s alleged statements. The court also found that Watson had not identified a specific defamation claim that the subpoena would uncover and stated that any new defamation claim would be barred by New York’s one-year statute of limitations for libel and slander.

2. Specificity. The subpoena sought the identities of everyone who created or maintained the account or received funds, regardless of whether those people had anything to do with the allegedly defamatory statements. The court found the request overly broad and rejected Watson’s theory that a person involved with the account would necessarily have relevant information.

3. Alternative sources. The court held that Watson had not shown that he had exhausted other sources of information. It identified discovery from the individual defendants he had already identified as an obvious alternative source.

4. Need for the information. The court found that Watson had not plausibly shown that he had a claim against DMA Doe or another potential defendant, or that the subpoenaed information was necessary to advance his remaining claims.

5. Privacy and anonymous speech. The court recognized that the First Amendment protects anonymous speech, including speech on the internet. It found that DMA Doe had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the requested personal information. The court rejected Watson’s argument that the First Amendment did not protect DMA Doe because defamatory statements are not protected, reasoning that Watson had not shown that DMA Doe made defamatory statements on GoFundMe or committed illegal acts there.

Disposition

The court concluded that the magistrate judge’s order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. It overruled Watson’s objections and granted the motion to quash the GoFundMe subpoena. The Clerk was directed to close case No. 21-cv-4304.