Watson v. NY Doe 2

Background

An anonymous Instagram account accused Ralph M. Watson of sexual misconduct. Watson alleges that he was terminated from his position at Crispin, Porter & Bogusky because of that accusation. The account was operated by Diet Madison Avenue, an anonymous internet group whose stated purpose was exposing sexual harassment and discrimination in advertising agencies.

Watson filed related lawsuits alleging defamation and other torts. In the federal action, the court had dismissed most of his claims but allowed certain defamation claims against Illinois Doe 1 and NY Doe 2, along with a tortious-interference-with-contract claim against NY Doe 2. Diet Madison Avenue itself and DMA Doe were not defendants in that action.

Watson subpoenaed GoFundMe for information about people who created, maintained, or received funds from a campaign called “Diet Madison Avenue Legal Defense.” He sought names and contact information, including addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and internet protocol addresses. DMA Doe moved to quash the subpoena, meaning to have the court cancel it. A magistrate judge granted that motion on April 15, 2022, and Watson objected.

Legal standard

Because the subpoena ruling concerned discovery rather than the ultimate claims, Judge Koeltl reviewed the magistrate judge’s order under a deferential standard. The district court could change the order only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court explained that this means the order must contain a clear mistake or fail to apply the relevant law, and that magistrate judges have broad discretion in resolving discovery disputes.

The court also applied a five-factor test for subpoenas seeking to identify anonymous internet users. The factors ask whether the requesting party has shown a concrete initial claim for legally actionable harm, whether the discovery request is specific, whether other ways to obtain the information exist, whether the information is needed to advance the claim, and whether the anonymous person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Court’s analysis

First, the court held that Watson had not made a concrete initial showing of a legally actionable claim against DMA Doe. Watson suggested that the subpoena might reveal a conspiracy claim, but the court had already dismissed his conspiracy claims. The court also found no plausible allegation connecting someone who founded or received funds from the GoFundMe account to NY Doe 2’s alleged statements. Watson had not identified a specific defamation claim that the subpoena would uncover, and the court stated that any new defamation claim would be barred by New York’s one-year limitation period for libel and slander claims.

Second, the court found the subpoena overly broad. It sought the identities of everyone who created or maintained the GoFundMe account or received funds, without regard to whether those people had anything to do with the allegedly defamatory statements. Watson’s assertion that DMA Doe might have personal knowledge of the group’s postings was speculative.

Third, the court found that Watson had not shown that he had exhausted other sources of information. The court identified discovery from the individual defendants he had already identified as an obvious alternative source.

Fourth, the court rejected Watson’s claim that the GoFundMe information was the only way to advance his remaining claims. Watson had not plausibly shown that he had a claim against DMA Doe or another potential defendant.

Fifth, the court found that DMA Doe had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the requested personal information. The court noted that Watson had not shown that DMA Doe made defamatory statements on GoFundMe or committed illegal acts there. The court therefore rejected Watson’s reliance on cases involving reduced privacy interests connected to illegal activity on the subpoenaed platform.

Disposition

Judge Koeltl concluded that the magistrate judge’s order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court overruled Watson’s objections, granted the motion to quash Watson’s subpoena, and directed the Clerk to close case No. 21-cv-4304. The opinion states that arguments not specifically addressed were either moot or without merit.