First District roundup

Last week the First District issued two decisions worth mentioning--one civil and one criminal.

Does Dendrite International apply in Ohio?

What standard must a court apply when a plaintiff seeks to use the subpoena power of the court to identify an anonymous speaker on the internet? There is not yet a consensus to this important question in Ohio, but earlier this week the First District--my home district, filled with good judges with whom I very rarely disagree--bucked the national trend by declining to apply the standard from Dendrite International v. Doe. In my opinion this case was wrongly decided, and does not adequately protect the constitutional right to anonymous speech. This is a subject in which I'm very interested; see here for video of my participation in a panel last week at the Ohio State Bar Association's Law and Media Conference.

Update: we have filed an amicus brief in support of Doe's jurisdictional appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Pitcher v. Waldman - no requirement to hold sanctions hearing

In Pitcher v. Waldman, the First District affirmed the trial court's decision denying sanctions. The defendant argued that the complaint was based on claims that the plaintiffs knew had previously been released pursuant to the settlement of earlier litigation, and that the sole purpose of the complaint was to harass Waldman.  The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the First District rejected the argument that a trial court must hold a hearing on a motion for sanctions; per R.C. 2323.51(B)(2) requires a hearing only if the court imposes sanctions.