Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
The following represent pleadings, motion papers and authority
related to our representation of The Suggestion Box, Inc. in Mobilisa, Inc. v. Does, CV 2005-12619, in the Superior
Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. The Suggestion Box opposed
Mobilisa's motion for discovery. The Court heard oral arguments
on December 2, 2005.
Related to litigation filed in the State of Washington, Mobilisa,
Inc. filed an action and Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery
in the Superior Court of Arizona - Maricopa County seeking personally
identifying information from The Suggestion Box, Inc. (www.theanonymousemail.com)
about one of its customers.
The Suggestion Box, Inc. (www.theanonymousemail.com) opposed
Mobilisa, Inc.'s motion, and Mobilisa, Inc. thereafter filed
a reply thereto.
Box' Opposition Memorandum
During the briefing on Mobilisa, Inc.'s Arizona motion, the
Supreme Court of Delaware ruled on the issue of obtaining personal
identifying information from anonymous online speakers in John
Doe No. 1 v. Patrick Cahill and Julia Cahill, C.A. No. 04C-011-022.
This represented the first time the highest court of a state
had ruled upon the issues. Consequently, on behalf of The Suggestion
Box, we filed a copy of the Delaware ruling with the Court.
Suggestion Box' Supplemental Authority
On December 2, 2005, the Superior Court of Arizona - Maricopa
County heard oral arguments on Mobilisa, Inc.'s motion. Charles
Lee Mudd Jr. argued on behalf of The Suggestion Box, Inc.
Argument Transcript - December 2, 2005
Later that month, the Court issued an Under Advisement Ruling
adopting the summary judgment standard supported by The Suggestion
Box, Inc. Rather than deny Mobilisa, Inc.'s ruling in its entirety,
however, the Court invited supplemental memoranda on the issue
of whether Mobilisa, Inc. could withstand a motion for summary
judgment. The Court also ordered The Suggestion Box, Inc. to
make effort to advise John Doe of the discovery proceedings.
The Court also provided John Doe the opportunity to communicate
anonymously with the Court - however John Doe preferred - within
twenty (20) days of being notified.
Advisement Ruling - December 28, 2005 -- Docketed January
Suggestion Box' Supplemental Memorandum
Inc.'s Supplemental Memorandum
In compliance with the Court's order, The Suggestion Box, Inc.
made efforts to advise John Doe. Thinking John Doe had chosen
not to respond to notification, Mobilisa, Inc. filed an additional
Inc.'s Supplemental Memorandum on Doe
In fact, John Doe had at that time just communicated with Charles
Lee Mudd Jr. and joined in the arguments and briefs filed by
The Suggestion Box, Inc.
Declaration of Charles Lee Mudd Jr.
Affidavit of Charles Lee Mudd Jr.
on behalf of John Doe I
On March 1, 2006, the Court issued its ruling
granting Mobilisa's Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery.
1, 2006 Order
On April 16, 2006, The Suggestion Box, Inc. and John Doe filed a Petition for Special Action with the Arizona Appellate Court and the parties completed briefing related thereto.
Petition for Special Action
Mobilisa Opposition to Petition for Special Action
Reply Brief in Support of Petition for Special Action
On May 10, 2006, the Arizona Appellate Court declined jurisdiction to hear the Petition for Special Action.
Subsequently, The Suggestion Box, Inc. and John Doe filed an appeal with the Arizona Appellate Court. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Citizen filed an amici brief. All parties have concluded briefing on this appeal and await determination of whether oral argument will ensue.
TSB and John Doe Opening Appellate Brief
EFF and Public Citizen Amici Brief
Mobilisa Opposition Brief
TSB and John Doe Reply Brief