## Facts

- Liskula Cohen, a professional fashion model, was the sole subject of an anonymous Blogger.com site titled “Skanks of NYC,” consisting of five posts published the same day.
- The posts used pejorative terms and included statements implying Cohen was sexually promiscuous, unclean, and dishonest, accompanied by photographs of Cohen.
- Cohen alleged the statements were false, malicious, impugned her chastity, and harmed her reputation and work as a model (defamation per se).
- Cohen sought identifying information for the blogger (e.g., email and IP-related data) from Google/Blogger; Google declined to produce it without a court order.
- Cohen filed a special proceeding for pre-action disclosure under CPLR 3102(c) to identify the blogger so she could bring a defamation action.
- The anonymous blogger appeared through counsel and opposed disclosure, arguing the blog content was nonactionable opinion, rhetoric, and hyperbole.

## Issues

1. Under CPLR 3102(c), did Cohen show a prima facie meritorious defamation claim sufficient to justify pre-action disclosure of the anonymous blogger’s identity?
2. Were the blog statements, viewed in context, reasonably susceptible of defamatory meaning and understood by a reasonable reader as assertions of fact rather than protected opinion or hyperbole?

## Decision

- The court granted the petition for pre-action disclosure.
- It held Cohen made a sufficient prima facie showing of defamation, including defamation per se.
- It rejected the argument that the blog’s language and tone rendered the statements nonactionable as a matter of law.
- The court ordered Google to disclose information sufficient to identify the anonymous blogger, including registration and other identifying information.

## Legal Principles

- CPLR 3102(c) permits pre-action disclosure to aid in bringing an action, including to identify prospective defendants, but the petitioner must show a meritorious cause of action and that the discovery sought is material and necessary, not a fishing expedition.
- A statement is defamatory if it tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, or induces an evil opinion of the person in the minds of right-thinking persons.
- Defamation per se includes statements imputing unchastity to a woman and statements that harm a person in their trade, business, or profession.
- Whether speech is actionable fact or protected opinion depends on the specific language used, whether it is verifiable, and the full context and broader social setting; the question is how a reasonable reader would understand the communication.
- Anonymous speech interests do not bar disclosure when a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that the anonymous speaker engaged in defamatory speech and the identity information is necessary to pursue the claim.

## Conclusion

The court compelled Google to unmask an anonymous blogger because the blog’s accusations, viewed as a whole and in context, could be read as verifiable factual assertions that impugned Cohen’s chastity and professional reputation, satisfying the prima facie merit requirement for pre-action disclosure under CPLR 3102(c).


Matter of Cohen v. Google, Inc., 25 Misc. 3d 945, 887 N.Y.S.2d 424 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2009)