## Facts

- Jane Doe I and Jane Doe II, female Yale Law School students, alleged they were targeted by defamatory, threatening, and harassing statements posted on AutoAdmit.com, a high-traffic message board about colleges and law schools.
- Threads about Doe II included a post linking to her photograph and inviting others to “rate” her, followed by sexually explicit comments and other hostile statements.
- Plaintiffs sued numerous unknown posters who used many different pseudonymous screen names on AutoAdmit.
- To identify one specific poster using the pseudonym “AK47,” plaintiffs issued a subpoena duces tecum (Feb. 1, 2008) to SBC Internet Services, Inc., now known as AT&T Internet Services (“AT&T”), seeking information identifying the subscriber assigned to the IP address used for the “AK47” posts.
- The subscriber associated with that IP address appeared in the case as “John Doe 21,” moved to quash the subpoena, and argued that the First Amendment protected his right to speak anonymously online.
- John Doe 21 also moved for permission to proceed anonymously in litigating the motion to quash.
- Plaintiffs took steps to provide notice of the subpoena and a chance for the anonymous poster to object.

## Issues

1. What showing must a civil plaintiff make before enforcing a subpoena that would disclose the identity of an anonymous Internet speaker alleged to have committed defamation or related wrongful acts?
2. Under that standard, should the subpoena to AT&T seeking identifying information for the AutoAdmit poster “AK47” be quashed?
3. May the subscriber (John Doe 21) litigate the motion to quash under a pseudonym in the public record?

## Decision

- The court denied John Doe 21’s motion to quash and permitted enforcement of the subpoena to AT&T, subject to limits designed to protect confidentiality.
- The court applied a multi-factor test similar to *Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe*, requiring notice, identification of the challenged statements, a prima facie evidentiary showing, and a balancing of competing interests.
- The court granted in part John Doe 21’s motion to proceed anonymously, allowing him to remain “John Doe 21” in public filings while permitting disclosure of his identity to plaintiffs through the subpoena process under protective conditions.

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment protects anonymous speech, including anonymous online speech, but anonymity is not absolute and does not bar disclosure when a plaintiff makes an adequate showing that allegedly unlawful speech is at issue.
- Before ordering or allowing discovery that unmasks an anonymous speaker, a court may require safeguards and a showing similar to the *Dendrite* framework, including:
  - Reasonable efforts to notify the anonymous speaker and allow time to respond.
  - Identification of the exact statements claimed to be actionable, tied to the anonymous poster whose identity is sought.
  - A legally valid cause of action and evidence supporting each element on a prima facie basis.
  - A balancing of the speaker’s interest in remaining anonymous against the plaintiff’s showing and the need for disclosure to pursue the claims.
- Courts may allow disclosure through a protective order or other confidentiality limits to reduce unnecessary public exposure while permitting litigation to proceed.
- A litigant may be permitted to proceed under a pseudonym in appropriate circumstances, especially where disclosure could cause significant reputational or privacy harm and the opposing party can still obtain the information needed to litigate fairly.

## Conclusion

In *Doe I v. Individuals*, the District of Connecticut refused to quash a subpoena directed to AT&T seeking the identity behind the AutoAdmit pseudonym “AK47,” holding that plaintiffs met a *Dendrite*-style set of requirements—notice, specificity, a prima facie evidentiary showing, and a balance favoring disclosure—so the First Amendment did not prevent unmasking for purposes of pursuing the alleged defamation and related claims, while also permitting the subscriber to remain “John Doe 21” in the public docket even as his identity would be disclosed to plaintiffs under protective limits.


Doe I v. Individuals, 561 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D. Conn. 2008)