Bookmark and Share



» Access to Courts and Court Remedies

» Campaign Finance and Election Laws

» Constitutional Rights and Requirements

» Health, Safety, and Environment

» Open Government and Open Courts

» Representing Consumers

» Workers' Rights

Currently Featured Topics

Government Transparency
Consumer Justice
First Amendment
Health, Safety and the Environment


Read about our work helping lawyers
with cases in the Supreme Court.


  Public Citizen | Litigation Cases ***Search other cases***

UMG Recordings v. Escape Media Group

Topic(s): Internet Free Speech - Right To Speak Anonymously



A defendant in a copyright infringement action pending in New York state court subpoenaed a California journalist seeking information to identify the author of two anonymous comments posted to a story on the journalist’s blog, claiming that employees of the defendant are given quotas of music to upload and, with the knowledge of their supervisors, meet those quotas by uploading copyrighted sound recordings. Opposing a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena, we represent the journalist in arguing that, because the journalist does not retain identifying information for more than a few days and because he discarded the identifying information in the ordinary course of business before the subpoena was issued, the subpoena is moot. In any event, we argue, the defendant has not met the stringent First Amendment standards for taking away the right of the commenters to speak anonymously, and that, on the unusual facts of the case the anonymous commenters are the journalist’s sources, California’s shield law also precludes enforcement of the subpoena. The trial court enforced the subpoena and then ordered the journalist to undertake complex and expensive data preservation procedures so that a forensic inspection could be completed to determine whether any of the deleted identifying information could be recovered from the journalist’s servers.

We represented the journalist on appeal.  The Court of Appeal granted a stay pending appeal on a writ of supersedeas.  We argued that there was no basis for a forensic inspection and, therefore, for data preservation absent a showing that information was improperly discarded and that a forensic inspection was likely to be fruitful. We also argued that, in any event, the First Amendment requirements for identifying the anonymous commenter had not been met.

After seeking supplemental briefing from the parties on two issues, the Court of Appeal reversed on the grounds on which it had sought briefing. First, it ruled that the discovery sought by Escape Music Group was not relevant to the issues in the New York state court lawsuit. In any event California’s constitutional right of privacy protects the right of the commenter to remain anonymous. The court therefore did not have to reach the other issues in the case, including the First Amendment and the right to delete data in the ordinary course of business without being subject to forensic examination.

Copyright © 2017 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.

Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation


Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.


To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.