## Facts

- Lisa Krinsky, a former officer of SFBC International, Inc., alleged that anonymous posters on a Yahoo! Finance message board attacked her and other executives.
- Krinsky claimed the posts imputed dishonesty, fraud, improper professional conduct, and criminal activity.
- Doe No. 6, posting as “Senor–Pinche–Wey,” made crude and vulgar statements, including insults about SFBC officers, graphic sexual insinuations, and a suggestion that Krinsky’s medical degree was “fake.”
- Krinsky sued ten anonymous defendants in Florida state court for defamation (libel) and intentional interference with contractual and/or business employment relationships.
- To identify the posters, Krinsky served a California subpoena on Yahoo! seeking identifying information.
- After Yahoo! notified Doe 6 it would comply absent court relief, Doe 6 moved in California to quash the subpoena; the trial court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. What standard governs whether a court may compel disclosure of an anonymous internet speaker’s identity when First Amendment anonymity is asserted?
2. Whether Krinsky made a sufficient prima facie showing of actionable defamation (or other unprotected speech) by Doe 6 to justify enforcing the subpoena.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying Doe 6’s motion to quash and remanded with directions to grant the motion as to Doe 6’s identity.
- The court held that unmasking an anonymous speaker requires a prima facie evidentiary showing of the elements of the plaintiff’s claim that are within the plaintiff’s control.
- Applying Florida defamation law, the court concluded Krinsky did not make a prima facie showing because the challenged posts, read in context, were nonactionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole rather than provably false assertions of fact.
- The court criticized the trial court’s reliance on speculative “pump and dump” analogies not pleaded in Krinsky’s complaint.

## Legal Principles

- Anonymous online speech is protected by the First Amendment, but the protection is qualified and may yield to a properly supported claim based on unprotected speech (including defamation).
- A plaintiff seeking discovery to identify an anonymous speaker must present a prima facie evidentiary showing of each claim element within the plaintiff’s control; mere allegations or a “good faith” assertion is insufficient.
- In assessing defamation, courts consider context and audience expectations; insulting epithets, crude name-calling, and rhetorical hyperbole are generally not actionable because they are not reasonably understood as stating provable facts.
- Courts should evaluate the claims and evidentiary showing actually presented, not unpleaded theories offered to justify compelled disclosure.

## Conclusion

The court protected anonymous internet speech by requiring a prima facie evidentiary showing before enforcing discovery that would reveal an online speaker’s identity, and it found that the vulgar, exaggerated message-board postings at issue were constitutionally protected opinion rather than actionable defamation.


Krinsky v. Doe No. 6, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)