According to a police report, on December 8, 2011, Meredith Nilan, the 24-year-old daughter of the Chief of Probation at Berkshire Superior Court, was involved in a car accident. While driving home from a social gathering, Nilan allegedly hit a running pedestrian, Peter Moore. According to the police report, she claimed she stopped and looked around, but then left the scene of the accident. According to The Berkshire Eagle and the police report, Moore suffered serious injuries.

After further investigation by the Pittsfield Police Department, Nilan was charged with leaving the scene of a personal injury accident and negligent operation of a motor vehicle to endanger. Later, in a closed show cause hearing on January 12, 2012, Assistant Clerk-Magistrate Nathan A. Byrnes found insufficient evidence for the case to go to trial. 

Around this time, Valenti started blogging about the developments of the case on his blog PlanetValenti.com. Valenti's blog suggested that Nilan might be receiving favorable treatment because of her father's position. He also questioned Nilan's version of events as reflected in the police report about the scene of the accident. 

On February 13, 2012, Springfield District Court Judge William P. Hadley overturned the Clerk-Magistrate's determination, and held there was probable cause to charge Nilan with leaving the scene of an accident and negligent operation of a motor vehicle.  She was later arraigned and charged; on June 6, 2012, prosecutors dismissed the charge of leaving the scene of an accident, and continued the misdemeanor negligent operation charge for six months Throughout these proceedings, Valenti continued to blog about the case. 

On June 22, 2012, Meredith Nilan filed a complaint for a civil harassment prevention order and supporting affidavit against Valenti in the Central Berkshire (Pittsfield) District Court. Nilan claimed that Valenti's blog posts were "lies and innuendo" and a "regular and malicious attack" on her reputation. She asserted that because of Valenti's "sensational interpretations" and reader's "anonymous rants," she feared "vigilante justice," and that "Mr. Valenti's continued vitriol and his repeated inclination to print lies and sensationalize every aspect of my case has made me fear for my personal safety."

A few days later on June 27, 2012, after an ex parte hearing, District Court Judge Bethzaida Sanabria-Vega issued a harassment prevention order directing Valenti "to remove any and all information referring to the Plaintiff [Ms. Nilan] from any and all websites, blogs, etc." Also included was an order to stay 100 yards from the plaintiff and to stay away from the plaintiff's work and residence. 

On his blog, Valenti wrote that he complied with the order on June 28, 2012, after recivint the order the night before.

Valenti filed a responsive affidavit on July 5, 2012, in which he detailed how he became involved in the Nilan story and responded to Nilan's claims. In his affidavit, he asserted that he had "never met her, talked with her, been near her, contacted or attempted to contact her, or spoken to Meredith Nilan, let alone 'harass'[ed] her." Valenti claimed that he reported facts "honestly, fairly, diligently, and justly," and that while he invited readers to share their views, he did not enourage outrage.

On July 9, 2012, the court held a hearing on the prevention order. According to a news report on the hearing, Valenti read his affidavit aloud, and Nilan read a statement.

Valenti's lawyer, Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, also filed a brief in his defense. In the brief, Valenti argued that he did not "harass" Nilan, as defined in the statute, because he had never met her or had any contact with her.  Valenti also argued that the civil harassment statute, Mass. Gen. Laws c. 258E, does not authorize a court to proscribe or censure speech on the Internet, and that the statute would be unconstitutionally overbroad if applied to the blog. Citing O'Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415 (2012), in which the Supreme Judicial Court interpreted c. 258E to avoid overbreadth by limiting its reach to "fighting words" and "true threats," the brief further asserted that there was no "face-to-face" confrontation likely to provoke violence (as required by the "fighting words" doctrine) or "intent to commit an unlawful act" against Nilan (as required to prove a "true threat"). Rather, Valenti claimed that his blog posts were true speech on a matter of public concern, and that the the judge's previous order was an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment and Massachusetts Consitution. 

Nilan did not file a response, according to the Central Berkshire District Court clerk's office. 

Bill Newman, director of Western Massachusetts ACLU, submitted an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the order was an impermissible prior restraint and "sweeping censorship." The amicus argued that the order to remove previously published information is even worse than a typical prior restraint because "it does not merely 'freeze' the speaker; it requires him to bowdlerize prior speech." The amicus also argued that Nilan's affidavit did not allege "three acts of either 'fighting words' or 'true threat' by Valenti or his web site," as required by the statute. 

At the July 9, 2012 hearing, Judge Mark D. Mason overruled and vacated the harassment prevention order.

On June 2, 2012, attorney Charles Carreon sent a letter on behalf of FunnyJunk, LLC ("FunnyJunk") to Matthew Inman, creator of TheOatmeal.com, which threatened legal action on the basis of a May 2011 blog post by Inman titled "What should I do about FunnyJunk.com?".

In the post, Inman stated that he had discovered a number of his comics displayed without permission or attribution on FunnyJunk, and that he contacted FunnyJunk by email in an attempt to have them removed from the site. He claimed that FunnyJunk took down the images that were identified in the email, but that FunnyJunk had since "practically stolen [his] entire website and mirrored it on FunnyJunk." The post included screen shots of Inman's comics on FunnyJunk.com, and links to FunnyJunk image boards containing his work (as well as that of other artists that Inman alleged had been republished without permission).  

A few days later, Inman posted an update that indicated FunnyJunk had removed some, but not all, of the content at issue.

The June 2 letter from FunnyJunk included a copy of Inman's original post, and alleged that statements made therein constituted a false accusation of willful copyright infringement. Thus, it stated, Inman "exposed [himself] to a lawsuit for defamation per se, in which damages are presumed." The letter also alleged that Inman had engaged in false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act. It concluded by demanding the immediate removal of all mentions of FunnyJunk from TheOatmeal.com and the payment of $20,000.

On June 11, 2012, Inman formally responded to the June 2 letter through his attorney, Venkat Balasubramani. The response letter denied FunnyJunk's claims that the original post was defamatory and constituted a violation of the Lanham Act. The response letter pointed out that FunnyJunk did not appear to have filed a notice of designation naming an agent as required of service providers who seek to rely on the Digital Milennium Copyright Act, placing FunnyJunk in a position where it might be held responsible for third-party infringements. 

On June 12, 2012, Inman issued an informal response to the letter in a post entitled "FunnyJunk is threatening to file a federal lawsuit against me unless I pay $20,000 in damages," published on TheOatmeal.com. Inman included an annotated copy of the June 2 letter, and proposed that he would raise $20,000 in donations and donate the money to two charitable organizations: the National Wildlife Federation, and the American Cancer Society. A link was provided to the fundraising website Indiegogo.com. 

On June 15, 2012, Carreon filed a lawsuit in his own name against Inman, Indiegogo, Inc., the American Cancer Society, the National Wildlife Federation and 100 anonymous Internet users for their role in the fundraising effort. As of July 20, 2012, no further action appears to have been taken by FunnyJunk. 

Substantive Proceedings

The Art of Living Foundation is an international nonprofit organization that, according to its website, is "engaged in stress-management and service initiatives." Two former followers, Skywalker and Klim, published anonymous blogs (entitled "Leaving the Art of Living" and "Beyond the Art of Living") criticizing the Art of Living's practices and their leader, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. In addition to their critiques, they also provide excerpts from the Art of Living's teaching manuals and other materials (normally provided to members in courses for a fee).

On August 14, 2010, Skywalker and Klim received a demand from Art of Living (from its headquarters in India) to take down this material. The branch of Art of Living in the United States (based in California) also filed a complaint on November 5, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Art of Living alleged copyright infringement under federal law for the blogs' publication of portions of the "Breath Water Sound Manual." In addition, Art of Living alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, defamation, and trade libel under California law, based on the aforementioned publication and the Does' critical statements about the organization.

On January 31, 2011, the Does filed a motion to dismiss the defamation and trade libel claims for failure to state a claim. They also filed a special motion to strike the defamation, trade libel, and trade secrets claims under California's anti-SLAPP statute. Art of Living filed both an opposition to the motion to dismiss and an opposition to the motion to strike on March 17, 2011, to which the Does replied (reply re: motion to dismiss; reply re: motion to strike) on April 6, 2011. After a hearing in May, on June 15, 2011, U.S. District Judge Koh dismissed the defamation and trade libel claims and denied (without prejudice) the motion to strike. Judge Koh found that the statements at issue were opinions rather than assertions of fact, resolving the defamation claim, and that Art of Living did not sufficiently allege harm or damages for the trade libel claim. Judge Koh also held that discovery on the trade secrets claim could not proceed until Art of Living identified the trade secrets with reasonable particularity.

On July 14, 2011, Art of Living proceeded to amend their complaint in accordance with the June 15th order, removing the dismissed claims from their complaint. Art of Living also provided further detail and content identification in regards to the remaining copyright infringement and trade secrets claims. The Does answered the amended complaint on July 28, 2011.

The Does then filed a second special motion to strike on September 12, 2011 (with the redacted version entering the docket on January 9, 2012), this time directed at the remaining trade secret claim. This motion was opposed by Art of Living on September 29, 2011. Additionally, on September 27, 2011, the Does filed a motion for summary judgment on the copyright infringement claims. Art of Living filed an opposition to this motion on October 11, 2011, which the Does replied to on October 24, 2011. 

In an order on May 1, 2012, Judge Koh granted summary judgment on the copyright infringement claim. Judge Koh found that Klim was entitled to summary judgment based on noninfringement, and that Art of Living did not provide enough support for its claim of authorship of the manual to pursue a copyright infringement claim against Skywalker because the copyright registration certificate was obtained after the litigation began). The district court also granted Klim's motion to strike the trade secrets misappropriation claim while denying the motion to strike in regards to Skywalker. While Skywalker conceded that there was at least some overlap between his blog postings and the materials Art of Living designated as trade secrets, Art of Living presented no evidence that Klim misappropriated any of these materials.

Anonymity in Art of Living v. Does

Throughout the proceedings described above, there was an ongoing issue with respect to the defendants' ability to proceed anonymously.

On November 9, 2010, Art of Living filed a motion for leave to take expedited discovery. Pursuant to an ex parte order by Magistrate Judge Beeler, on December 20, 2010, Art of Living subpoenaed Google and Wordpress to reveal the identities of bloggers Skywalker and Klim. Not long after being notified of this by Google, the Does filed a motion to quash the subpoena. In response, Art of Living filed an opposition on March 22, 2011, and the Does replied on April 28, 2011. On August 10, 2011, Magistrate Judge Lloyd denied the motion to quash in regards to Skywalker's claim while granting it for Klim, finding that the copyright claim was a sufficient basis for permitting identification of Skywalker.

In response, on August 24, 2011, Skywalker filed a motion for relief from the order of the Magistrate Judge regarding the motion to quash. On August 31, 2011, Public Citizen, joined by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU, submitted an amicus brief. This brief urged the court to apply the balancing test adopted in Dendrite Int'l v. Does, despite the copyright claim being considered in the case. Art of Living's opposition to the motion for relief was filed on September 16, 2011, and Skywalker replied on September 30, 2011.

On November 9, 2011, Judge Koh granted the motion, finding that Skywalker's First Amendment right to anonymous speech outweighed Art of Living's need for discovery at this time. Judge Koh applied the Highfields Capital two-part test (which relied heavily on Dendrite) for determining whether to allow discovery seeking the identity of an anonymous defendant: "(1) The plaintiff must produce competent evidence supporting a finding of each fact that is essential to a given cause of action; and (2) if the plaintiff makes a sufficient evidentiary showing, the court must compare the magnitude of the harms that would be caused to the competing interests by a ruling in favor of the plaintiff and by a ruling in favor of the defendant."

In a case management conference and corresponding minute order on May 9, 2012, Judge Koh again denied all of Art of Living's motions to disclose Skywalker's identity. By also refusing to extend discovery a setting the trial date and length, these rulings potentially allowed Skywalker to defend at trial anonymously.

Related Case and Settlement

On June 8, 2012, Judge Koh granted Art of Living's motion to relate Art of Living Foundation v. Eng-An Chou (Docket no. 5:12-CV-02748-LHK) to this case. Chou involves Art of Living's claim that Eng-An Chou breached her contracts with Art of Living by disclosing some of the organization's confidential texts to Skywalker for posting on his blog.

The next week, the cases were referred to Judge Joseph C. Spero for a Magistrate Judge Settlement Conference. The conference was held on June 12, 2012 and a settlement was reportedly reached. As part of the settlement agreement, Skywalker and Klim published a joint statement informing readers of the settlement and would proceed to freeze their blogs on June 19, 2012. The joint statement noted that there are no restrictions on the Does to create new blogs, and that no identity had or would be disclosed in relation to this litigation and settlement. Art of Living also agreed to drop the lawsuit with prejudice (also dropping the separate suit against Chou) and to pay Skywalker and Klim's attorney's fees.