Quixtar, Inc. v. Signature Management NV, 566 F.Supp.2d 1205 (2008)

Does the Plaintiff's need to destroy the anonymity of the speaker have precedence over the anonymous speaker's right to remain anonymous?


Quixtar sued Signature Management Team (Team) claiming that agents of Team had tortiously interfering with Quixtar's existing business relationships and contracts by waging an internet campaign against Quixtar. During a deposition of Dickie, a Team employee responsible for web content, Quixtar asked if he were responsible for the content of various websites, blogs and internet videos. Dickie's lawyer objected, claiming the authors of the content had a 1st Amendment right to remain anonymous. Quixtar moved to compel.

Full case and case summary also available online at: http://www.mlmlegal.com/legal-cases/Quixtar_v_SignatureManagementNV.php

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info:Federal, 9th Circuit, Nevada | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Babener & Associates | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Babener & Associates on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.