From today's decision by Judge John Koeltl (S.D.N.Y.) in Watson v. NY Doe 1:
In January 2018, an anonymous post on an Instagram account accused the plaintiff, Ralph M. Watson, of sexual misconduct. The plaintiff alleges that he was terminated from his position at the advertising agency Crispin, Porter & Bogusky ("CP+B") as a result of the accusation. The Instagram account was run by "Diet Madison Avenue" ("DMA"), an anonymous internet group whose stated purpose is to "expos[e] sexual harassment and discrimination in ad agencies …."
On May 22, 2018, the plaintiff brought an action in the Los Angeles, California Superior Court for defamation and related torts against DMA and alleged affiliated individuals. In response to the action, an unknown individual or individuals created a GoFundMe campaign to fundraise for the legal defense of DMA members, titled the "Diet Madison Avenue Legal Defense."
On January 17, 2019, the plaintiff filed an action in this Court against certain individuals, alleging defamation and other common law torts in connection with the allegations of workplace sexual misconduct made against him. DMA Doe is not a defendant in this action. DMA itself is also not a defendant in this action, although some of the defendants were or were alleged to be members of DMA….
On January 8, 2021, the plaintiff issued a subpoena to GoFundMe. The subpoena sought to require GoFundMe to produce: "All information, including identifying information, of any person(s) who created the GoFundMe account 'Diet Madison Avenue Legal Defense[,]' … including but not limited to … [n]ame(s) of all person(s) that created, maintained, and/or received funds from the account[.]" It also sought the addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and internet protocol addresses for such persons. DMA Doe claims that the information sought would tend to reveal DMA Doe's identity, whether or not DMA Doe played any role in the creation of any allegedly defamatory posts. The plaintiff seeks to use the identifying information yielded by the GoFundMe subpoena to pursue his defamation claims in this Court….
The court concluded that the First Amendment precluded enforcement of the subpoena:
