## Facts

- Dendrite International, Inc., a software company, alleged that anonymous posts on a Yahoo! message board about its stock were defamatory and disclosed confidential information.
- Dendrite filed a verified complaint against multiple anonymous posters, asserting defamation, misappropriation of trade secrets, and related claims; the appeal concerned only “John Doe No. 3.”
- Doe No. 3 posted statements asserting that Dendrite had changed its revenue-recognition policy in a way that artificially improved earnings, echoing public criticism similar to a CFRA report that Dendrite disputed.
- Doe No. 3 also posted that Dendrite, with the knowledge of its president, had unsuccessfully attempted to sell the company.
- Yahoo! declined to disclose identifying information under its confidentiality policy, prompting Dendrite to seek expedited, limited discovery to subpoena Yahoo! and identify Doe No. 3.
- Dendrite supported its motion with a corporate officer’s declaration stating the posts “may” have harmed reputation, recruiting, morale, and stock price; the trial court noted the stock price rose during at least one period of posting.

## Issues

1. What procedures and evidentiary standard govern a request to compel an internet service provider to disclose the identity of an anonymous online speaker accused of defamation.
2. Whether Dendrite made a prima facie showing of defamation (including harm) sufficient to justify compelled disclosure of Doe No. 3’s identity.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of expedited discovery to identify Doe No. 3.
- The court required a structured showing before unmasking an anonymous speaker, including notice, specification of actionable statements, a prima facie evidentiary showing of each element of the claim, and a balancing of interests.
- Applying that standard, the court held Dendrite failed to present competent evidence of harm, an element necessary to establish a prima facie defamation claim.
- Because the prima facie showing was inadequate, the First Amendment interest in anonymous speech weighed against compelled identification.

## Legal Principles

- Anonymous online speech is protected by the First Amendment, and courts must guard against chilling effects from disclosure orders.
- Before ordering disclosure of an anonymous defendant’s identity, a plaintiff must:
  - make reasonable efforts to notify the anonymous speaker and provide an opportunity to respond;
  - identify with specificity the statements alleged to be actionable;
  - produce prima facie evidence supporting each element of the cause of action (in defamation, including harm) sufficient to survive summary judgment; and
  - if that showing is made, satisfy a balancing test weighing the strength and necessity of disclosure against the speaker’s right to anonymity.
- Conclusory assertions that speech “may” have caused injury, without supporting evidence, are insufficient to compel unmasking through discovery.

## Conclusion

The court refused to compel Yahoo! to reveal Doe No. 3’s identity because Dendrite did not produce prima facie evidence of defamation-related harm, and the First Amendment interest in anonymous online speech required a demanding, structured threshold before discovery could strip anonymity.


Dendrite Int’l, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 342 N.J. Super. 134, 775 A.2d 756 (App. Div. 2001)