the dirty opinion

8/13/2019 The Dirty Opinion

1/12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

NORTHERN DIVISION

AT COVINGTON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-219-WOB

SARAH JONES PLAINTIFF

VS. MEMORANDUM OPINION

DIRTY WORLD

ENTERTAINMENT

RECORDINGS, LLC, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

Background

At t he concl usi on of t he pr esent at i on of evi dence i n

t he second t r i al of t hi s case, t he def endant s made a t i mel y

mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw under Fed. R. Ci v.

P. 50.

The mot i on was pr i mar i l y based on t he ar gument t hat

t he def endant s wer e i mmune under t he Communi cat i ons Decency

Act ( CDA) , 47 U. S. C. 230. The Cour t deni ed t he mot i on

f or t he same r easons expr essed i n i t s ear l i er opi ni on

addr essi ng t hi s i ssue. See Jones v. Dirty World Entmt

Recordings, LLC, 840 F. Supp. 2d 1008 ( E. D. Ky. 2012) .

The j ury hung i n t he f i r st t r i al of t hi s case, whi ch

necessi t at ed a second t r i al . The evi dence i n bot h t r i al s

r egardi ng t he cl ai med i mmuni t y was essent i al l y t he same as

t hat descr i bed i n t he Cour t s ear l i er opi ni on. The case

was submi t t ed t o t he j ur y, whi ch r et ur ned a ver di ct f or t he

Case: 2:09-cv-00219-WOB-CJS Doc #: 210 Filed: 08/12/13 Page: 1 of 12 - Page ID#:3138


2/12

2

pl ai nt i f f f or $38, 000. 00 compensat ory damages and

$300, 000. 00 puni t i ve damages. 1 ( Doc. 207) .

The Cour t now f i l es t hi s suppl emental Memor andum

Opi ni on t o expl ai n f ur t her i t s r easons f or denyi ng

def endant s mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw.

Analysis

A. The precedents support the proposition that the CDA

provides only a sort of qualified immunity that can be

lost by the sites intentionally developing and/ormaterially contributing to the illegal or

objectionable material.

Throughout t hese proceedi ngs, counsel f or def endant s

has argued t hat no rat i onal cour t coul d deny CDA i mmuni t y

i n t hi s case, and t hat def endant s cl ai m f or i mmuni t y was

r equi r ed by al l exi st i ng pr ecedent s.

1 Def endant s, appar ent l y r el yi ng sol el y on thei r i mmuni t ydef ense, concede t he pr opr i et y of t hese amount s s i nce theychose not t o f i l e a mot i on f or a new t r i al under Fed. R.Ci v. P. 59( a) . See Young v. Langl ey, 793 F. 2d 792, 794( 6t h Ci r . 1986) ( Thi s cour t may not r evi ew t he al l egedexcessi veness of ver di ct s absent a t i mel y mot i on f or newt r i al and t he t r i al cour t s r ul i ng t her eon. ) . Fai l ur e t of i l e such a mot i on al so pr ecl udes appel l at e r evi ew of t hesuf f i ci ency of t he evi dence. See Gruener v. Ohio Cas. Ins.Co., 510 F. 3d 661, 665 ( 6t h Ci r . 2008) ; Pennington v.Western Atlas, Inc., 202 F. 3d 902, 911 ( 6t h Ci r . 2000) ;Young, 793 F. 2d at 794. See generally 12 Moores FederalPractice 59. 55 ( 3d ed. 2013) ( Gr ounds f or new t r i al t hatar i se sol el y i n t he cont ext of post t r i al pr oceedi ngs mustbe pr esent ed t o t he t r i al cour t f or consi der at i on by amot i on f or new t r i al , and t he f ai l ur e t o do so depr i ves t heappel l at e cour t f r om any r ecor d t hat i s r evi ewabl e f orer r or . ) .



3/12

3

Thi s cont ent i on mi sr epresent s t he l aw, however . Thi s

Cour t s r ul i ng on t he i mmuni t y i ssue i s suppor t ed by the

deci si ons of sever al Uni t ed St at es Ci r cui t Cour t s of

Appeal s and di st r i ct cour t cases and, i n f act , r epr esent s

t he wei ght of aut hor i t y.

The pr i nci pal precedent i s t he en banc deci si on of t he

Uni t ed St at es Cour t of Appeal s f or t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t i n

Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v.

Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F. 3d 1157 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008) ( en

banc) . See J ones, 840 F. Supp. 2d at 1000- 11. Ther e, t he

Ni nt h Ci r cui t hel d t hat a websi t e di d not enj oy CDA

i mmuni t y f or post i ng a quest i onnai r e and requi r i ng answer s

t o i t whi ch wer e al l eged t o vi ol at e f eder al and st at e

housi ng di scr i mi nat i on l aws, because such act s const i t ut ed

t he cr eat i on or devel opment of i nf ormat i on and t hus made

t he si t e an i nf or mat i on cont ent pr ovi der wi t hi n t he scope

of 47 U. S. C. 2309( c) and ( f ) ( 3) . Roommates, 521 F. 3d at

1164- 69.

Fol l owi ng remand and a deci si on on t he mer i t s of t he

under l yi ng st at ut or y housi ng cl ai ms, anot her appeal was

t aken. I n t he r esul t i ng opi ni on, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t

acknowl edged and left undisturbed i t s pr i or CDA r ul i ng,

al t hough i t hel d t hat t he websi t e had not vi ol at ed t he

housi ng st at ut es i n quest i on. See Fair Housing Council of



4/12

4

San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 666 F. 3d 1216

( 9t h Ci r . 2012) . 2

Si mi l ar l y, J udge East er br ook of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t ,

speaki ng f or a panel of t hat cour t , emphasi zed t hat t he CDA

does not pr ovi de a gr ant of compr ehensi ve i mmuni t y f r om

ci vi l l i abi l i t y f or cont ent pr ovi ded by a t hi r d par t y.

Chicago Lawyers Comm. For Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v.

Craigslist, Inc., 519 F. 3d 666, 670 ( 7t h Ci r . 2008) . Whi l e

f i ndi ng t he websi t e crai gsl i st t o be ent i t l ed t o CDA

i mmuni t y i n t hat case, t he Cour t not ed t hat [ n] ot hi ng i n

t he ser vi ce crai gsl i st of f er s i nduces anyone t o post any

par t i cul ar l i st i ng or expr ess a pr ef er ence f or

di scr i mi nat i on. Id. at 671- 72. Cf. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U. S. 913 ( 2005)

( hol di ng t hat di st r i but or s of sof t war e t hat enabl es f i l e

shar i ng t hr ough peer - t o- peer net wor ks can be l i abl e f or

cont r i but or y copyr i ght i nf r i ngement i f syst em i s desi gned

t o enabl e and encour age st eal i ng of musi c) .

2Def endant s char act er i zat i on of t he Ni nt h s Ci r cui t 2012opi ni on i n Roommates i s t hus ser i ousl y mi sl eadi ng. SeeDoc. 177 at 2 n. 1 ( st at i ng t hat because t he secondRoommates appeal was t er mi nat ed i n t he websi t e s f avor , i tdemonst r ate[ es] t hat t he pr i or r ul i ng denyi ng CDA i mmuni t yt o t he websi t e owner i n t hat case was i ncor r ect . ) . Asnot ed, t he Cour t hel d i n def endant s f avor on gr oundswhol l y unr el at ed t o CDA i mmuni t y and i mpl i ci t l y r e- af f i r medi t s pr i or opi ni on.



5/12

5

Si mi l ar l y, t he Ei ght h Ci r cui t has uphel d appl i cat i on

of CDA i mmuni t y but , i n doi ng so, observed t hat i t s r ul i ng

was based on t he f act t hat t he record cont ai ns no evi dence

t hat [ t he i nt er net ser vi ce pr ovi der ] desi gned i t s websi t e

t o be a por t al f or def amat or y mat er i al or [ di d] anyt hi ng t o

i nduce def amat or y post i ngs. Johnson v. Arden, 614 F. 3d

785, 792 ( 8t h Ci r . 2010) .

The Tent h Ci r cui t al so has hel d t hat a websi t e coul d

not cl ai m i mmuni t y under t he CDA i f i t was r esponsi bl e f or

t he devel opment of t he speci f i c cont ent t hat was t he sour ce

of t he al l eged l i abi l i t y. Fed. Trade Commn v. Accusearch

Inc., 570 F. 3d 1187, 1198 ( 10t h Ci r . 2009) . Moreover , t hat

Cour t hel d t hat one i s not r esponsi bl e f or devel opi ng

al l egedl y act i onabl e i nf or mat i on onl y i f one s conduct was

neut r al wi t h r espect t o t he of f ensi veness of t he cont ent .

Id. at 1199.

Thus, al t hough Cour t s have st at ed gener al l y t hat CDA

i mmuni t y i s br oad, t he wei ght of t he aut hor i t y t eaches t hat

such i mmuni t y may be l ost . That i s, a websi t e owner who

i nt ent i onal l y encour ages i l l egal or act i onabl e t hi r d- par t y

post i ngs t o whi ch he adds hi s own comment s r at i f yi ng or

adopt i ng t he post s becomes a cr eator or devel oper of

t hat cont ent and i s not ent i t l ed t o i mmuni t y. See, e.g.,

Hare v. Richie, Ci vi l Act i on No. ELH- 11- 3488, 2012 WL



6/12

6

3773116, at *19 ( D. Md. Aug. 29, 2012) ( not i ng t hat t he

appel l at e case l aw r egar di ng 230( c) ( 1) cont empl at es t hat

a websi t e oper at or may be depr i ved of i mmuni t y i f i t

desi gned i t s websi t e t o be a por t al f or def amat or y

mat er i al . ) ( quot i ng Johnson v. Arden, 614 F. 3d 785, 792

( 8t h Ci r . 2010) ) . 3

3 See also Hare, 1012 WL 3773116, at *17 ( not i ng t hatDi r t y Wor l d s i nvol vement goes beyond mer e edi t or i al

f unct i ons and ext ends t o t he cr eat i on of i t s own cont ent speci f i cal l y, Mr . Ri chi e s comment s at t he end of eachpost) ; S.C. v. Dirty World, LLC, No. 11- CV- 00392, 2012 WL3335284, at *5 ( W. D. Mo. Mar . 12, 2012) ( di st i ngui shi ngf act s of case f r om t hi s mat t er because t her e [ d] ef endant snei t her adopt ed or encour aged f ur t her devel opment of t hepost) ; Doctors Assoc., Inc. v. QIP Holder LLC, Ci vi lAct i on No. 3: 06- cv- 1710 ( VLB) , 2010 WL 669870, at *24 ( D.Conn. Feb. 19, 2010) ( denyi ng mot i on f or summary j udgmentbecause def endant s may have gone f ur t her and act i vel ypar t i ci pat ed i n creat i ng or devel opi ng t he t hi r d- par t y

cont ent submi t t ed t o the [ def endant s ] websi t e) ; CertainApproval Programs, L.L.C. v. Xcentric Ventures L.L.C., No.CV08- 1608- PHX- NVW, 2009 WL 596582, at *1- 3 ( D. Ar i z. Mar .9, 2009) ( denyi ng mot i on t o di smi ss because pl ai nt i f f sal l egat i ons t hat def endant s act i vel y sol i ci t def amat or ycont ent f r om t hi r d par t i es and di r ect l y encour age t he useof hyper bol e and exagger at i on t o maxi mi ze market abi l i t y off al se r epor t s make i t pl ausi bl e t hat def endant s ar ei nf ormat i on cont ent pr ovi der under t he CDA) 3; MCW, Inc. v.Badbusinessbureau.com, L.L.C., No. Ci v. A. 3: 02- CV- 2727- G,2004 WL 833595, at *8 ( N. D. Tex. Apr i l 19, 2004) ( Sect i on230( c) i mmuni t y i s not so br oad as t o ext end t o ani nt er act i ve comput er servi ce t hat goes beyond t het r adi t i onal publ i sher s r ol e and t akes an act i ve r ol e i ncreat i ng or devel opi ng t he cont ent at i ssue. ) ; Hill v.Stubhub, Inc., 727 S. E. 2d 550, 558 ( N. C. Ct . App. 2012)( not i ng t hat CDA anal ysi s by thi s Cour t i n t hi s mat t er i ssi mi l ar t o t hat deemed appr opr i at e i n Accusearch andRoommates. ) ; Woodhull v. Meinel, 202 P. 3d 126, 133- 34( N. M. Ct . App. 2008) ( r eversi ng gr ant of summary j udgment



7/12

7

The cases ci t ed by def endant s ar e ent i r el y

di st i ngui shabl e because none i nvol ve f act s wher e a websi t e

cont r i but ed t o t he devel opment of act i onabl e cont ent by

addi ng i t s own comment s i mpl i ci t l y adopt i ng an of f ensi ve

post i ng and encour agi ng si mi l ar post s. As not ed above,

Cour t s f aced wi t h such f act ual al l egat i ons have deni ed

mot i ons t o di smi ss and f or summar y j udgment based on CDA

i mmuni t y. 4

B. The Text and Purpose of the CDA are Contrary to

Defendants Interpretation.

Even a cur sor y readi ng of t he CDA r eveal s t hat

af f or di ng i mmuni t y on t he f act s of t hi s case woul d be

i nconsi st ent wi t h t he Act s pur pose.

The Act s subt i t l e i s Pr ot ect i on f or bl ocki ng and

scr eeni ng of of f ensi ve mat er i al . 47 U. S. C. 230. Among

t he st at ed pur poses of t he st at ut e ar e:

because def endant r equest ed potent i al l y def amatory mater i aland cont r i but ed her own t hought s t o t he over al l post ) .

4 Thus, def endant s st at ement i n t hei r br i ef t hat CDA casesot her t han t he one at bar wer e al l r esol ved by di sposi t i vemot i on, appr oxi mat el y 99% i n f avor of t he def endant i smi sl eadi ng. For exampl e, t he docket i n Certain ApprovalPrograms, L.L.C. v. Xcentric Ventures L.L.C., No. CV08-1608- PHX- NVW, 2009 WL 596582 ( D. Ar i z. Mar . 9, 2009) ,r ef l ect s t hat t he case was not r esol ved on di sposi t i vemot i ons. Rat her , af t er t he Cour t deni ed t he Rul e 12( b) ( 6)mot i on t o di smi ss, t he non- def aul t i ng def endant s set t l ed.( Doc. 73) . The docket al so r ef l ect s t hat def endant scounsel was def ense counsel i n t hat case and woul d be awareof thi s fact .



8/12

8

( 4) t o r emove di si ncent i ves f or t he devel opment andut i l i zat i on of bl ocki ng and f i l t er i ng t echnol ogi est hat empower par ent s t o r est r i ct t hei r chi l dr en saccess t o obj ect i onabl e or i nappr opr i at e onl i nemat er i al ; and

( 5) t o ensur e vi gor ous enf or cement of Feder alcr i mi nal l aws t o det er and puni sh t r af f i cki ng i nobsceni t y, st al ki ng and harassment by means ofcomput er .

47 U. S. C. 230( b) ( 4) , ( 5) . See Zeran v. America Online,

Inc., 129 F. 3d 327, 331 ( 4t h Ci r . 1997) ( Anot her i mpor t ant

pur pose of 230 was t o encour age ser vi ce pr ovi der s t o

sel f - r egul at e t he di ssemi nat i on of of f ensi ve mat er i al over

t hei r servi ces. ) .

The t i t l e of t he subsect i on where t he i mmuni t y

l anguage appear s i s Prot ect i on f or good samar i t an

bl ocki ng and scr eeni ng of of f ensi ve mat er i al . 47 U. S. C.

230( c) . A subsequent subsect i on r equi r es a websi t e t o

not i f y cust omer s of avai l abl e f i l t er i ng devi ces t hat may

assi st t he cust omer i n l i mi t i ng access t o mat er i al t hat i s

har mf ul t o mi nor s. 47 U. S. C. 230( d) . Fur t her ,

subsect i on ( e) ( 3) pr ovi des: Not hi ng i n t hi s sect i on shal l

be const r ued t o pr event any St at e f r om enf or ci ng any St ate

l aw t hat i s consi st ent wi t h t hi s sect i on.

Thus, def endant s prof f er ed i nt er pret at i on of CDA

i mmuni t y woul d di st or t t he i nt ent of Congr ess i n passi ng

t hi s Act and al l ow i t t o be used t o subver t t he l aw of



9/12


10/12

10

whi ch woul d be act i onabl e even by a publ i c f i gur e, i . e. ,

t hat t hey wer e knowi ngl y f al se or i n r eckl ess di sr egar d f or

t he t r ut h.

Fur t her , t he evi dence concl usi vel y demonst r at es t hat

t hese post i ngs and ot her s l i ke t hem wer e i nvi t ed and

encour aged by t he def endants by usi ng t he name Di r t y. com

f or t he websi t e and i nci t i ng t he vi ewer s of t he si t e t o

f or m a l oose or gani zat i on dubbed t he Di r t y Ar my, whi ch

was ur ged t o have a war ment al i t y agai nst anyone who

dar ed t o obj ect t o havi ng t hei r char act er assassi nat ed.

Speci f i cal l y, def endant Ri chi e added hi s own comment s

t o t he def amat or y post s concer ni ng pl ai nt i f f . For exampl e,

on December 7, 2009, a t hi r d- part y post ed, under a l arge

phot o of pl ai nt i f f :

Ni k, her e we have Sar ah J , capt ai n cheer l eader of t hepl ayof f bound ci nci bengal s . . Most ppl see Sar ah asa gorgeous cheer l eader AND hi ghschool t eacher . . yesshe s al so a t eacher . . but what most of you don tknow i s . . Her ex Nate . . cheated on her wi t h over50 gi r l s i n 4 yr s . . i n t hat t i me he t est ed posi t i vef or Chl amydi a I nf ect i on and Gonor r hea . . so i m sur eSarah al so has both . . whats worse i s he br ags aboutdoi ng sar ah i n t he gym . . f oot bal l f i el d . . hercl ass r oom at t he school she t eaches at DI XI E Hei ght s.

( Doc. 64- 2 at 32) . To t hi s, Ri chi e added hi s own t agl i ne,

i n bol d: Why ar e al l hi gh school t eacher s f r eaks i n t he

sack? ni k. ( Id.) . The t agl i ne and or i gi nal message

appear on one page as a si ngl e st ory.



11/12

11

Thus, Ri chi e s conduct cannot be sai d t o have been

neut r al wi t h r espect t o t he of f ensi veness of t he cont ent ,

such t hat he i s not r esponsi bl e f or i t wi t hi n t he meani ng

of 47 U. S. C. 230( f ) ( 3) . Accusearch, 570 F. 3d at 1199.

Def endant s al so ar gue t hat t he f act t hat pl ai nt i f f

ul t i mat el y decl i ned t o pur sue t hi s t agl i ne as an

i ndependent l y- act i onabl e st at ement al t er s t hi s anal ysi s and

makes t hese f act s i dent i cal t o t hose i n S.C. v. Dirty

World, LLC, No. 11- CV- 00392, 2012 WL 3335284, at *5 ( W. D.

Mo. Mar . 12, 2012) . ( Doc. 177 at 16- 17) .

Def endant s ar e mi st aken, f or t he sal i ent poi nt about

Ri chi e s t agl i ne i s not t hat i t was def amat or y i t sel f and

t hus out si de CDA i mmuni t y, but r at her t hat i t ef f ect i vel y

r at i f i ed and adopt ed t he def amat or y t hi r d- par t y post . The

Cour t i n S.C. r ecogni zed exact l y t hi s poi nt . Id. at *5.

As t he S.C. Cour t f ur t her noted, Ri chi e made ot her

comment s whi ch encour aged f ur t her def amat ory post s

concer ni ng pl ai nt i f f , such as: I l ove how t he DI RTY ARMY

has war ment al i t y; Never t r y t o bat t l e t he DI RTY ARMY;

and You dug your own grave her e Sar ah. Fol l owi ng t hese

comment s, an addi t i onal def amat or y post was made on the

si t e on J anuar y 9, 2010, accusi ng pl ai nt i f f of sl e[ epi ng]

wi t h ever y ot her Bengal s Foot bal l pl ayer . ( Doc. 64- 2 at

30) .



12/12

12

I t i s cl ear , t her ef or e, t hat Ri chi e di d f ar mor e t han

j ust al l ow post i ngs by ot hers or engage i n edi t or i al or

sel f - r egul at or y f unct i ons. Rat her , he pl ayed a si gni f i cant

r ol e i n devel opi ng t he of f ensi ve cont ent such t hat he has

no i mmuni t y under t he CDA, per t he precedents di scussed

above.

The j ury pr oper l y f ound t hat t hi s conduct j ust i f i ed an

award of puni t i ve damages under t he st r i ngent r equi r ement s

of KRS 411. 184, whi ch r equi r es a showi ng of oppr essi on,

f r aud or mal i ce f or al l puni t i ve damage awar ds.

Thi s 12t h day of August , 2013.


the dirty opinion

Documents