Web message posters needn't be identified, rules Pennsylvania appellate court

A plaintiff failed to establish her right to learn the identitiesof individuals who allegedly posted defamatory statements on anInternet message board, a Pennsylvania appellate court has ruled invacating a discovery order.

The defendant hosts a website that is critical of the citygovernment of Scranton, Pa. The plaintiff is a former city councilpresident. She sued the defendant, claiming that she was defamed bycomments posted on the website.

In her lawsuit, the plaintiff sought an order requiring thedefendant to identify certain "John Doe" defendants who usedpseudonyms to post messages about her.

The court adopted a four-part standard for deciding whendisclosure is warranted, explaining that a plaintiff must state avalid claim for defamation, the plaintiff must file an affidavit of"good faith and necessity," the John Doe defendant must receivesufficient notice and the court must the balance the equitiesfavoring disclosure against a defendant's First Amendment right toanonymity.

Here, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to allegesufficient facts to support a defamation claim.

"In the instant case, the trial court did not focus on [theplaintiff's] duty to produce prima facie evidence of actual harm.More is required than a bald assertion that the defamatorystatements harmed a plaintiff's reputation 'in the social, civil,professional and political community,'" the court said.

It remanded the case to allow the plaintiff an opportunity tosatisfy the new standard.

Pennsylvania Superior Court. Pilchesky v. Gatelli, No. A29036/09. Jan. 5, 2011. Lawyers USA No. 993-2585.