Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80028/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80028-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mason Awtry
Plaintiff
Glassdoor, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MASON AWTRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

GLASSDOOR, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-mc-80028-JCS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH 

THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA

Re: Dkt. No. 1

I. INTRODUCTION

Mason Awtry, who is the defendant in a federal lawsuit pending in the Northern District of 

Illinois (―the Illinois Action‖), brings a motion to compel Glassdoor, Inc. (―Glassdoor‖) to 

disclose the identities of individuals who posted certain anonymous reviews on its website 

(―Motion‖). Glassdoor, which is not a party to the Illinois Action, opposes the motion, arguing 

that Awtry has not satisfied the stringent standards for disclosure of anonymous speech under the 

First Amendment. A hearing on the Motion was held on April 1, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.1 For the 

reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Illinois Action 

In the Illinois Action, Emily Mackie and the company she owns, Inspired Interiors, Inc.

(―Inspired Interiors‖), are suing Mason Awtry, ―with whom [she] once had a personal 

relationship,‖ and one of Awtry‘s ―associates,‖ Michael Mayes. See Motion, Ex. A (Second 

Amended Complaint, Docket No. 31, Case No. 14-cv-09206, N.D. Ill.) (hereinafter, ―SAC‖). 

Mackie and Inspired Interiors (hereinafter, referred to collectively as ―Illinois Plaintiffs‖), allege 

 

1 Counsel for Awtry appeared at the hearing but Glassdoor‘s counsel did not, apparently due to a 

calendaring error relating to the time of the hearing. 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 1 of 28
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

that Awtry and Mayes acquired the domain name inspiredintereriors.com and posted on it, inter 

alia, ―Find Out the Truth About Emily Mackie . . . liar, cheater.‖ SAC ¶¶ 28-36. The website also 

allegedly stated that Mackie was ―adulterous‖ and promised to ―reveal the truth about‖ her.2Id. ¶¶ 

33, 37. According to the SAC, Inspired Interiors‘ website is operated at a different domain name -

- inspiredinterior.com; Mackie had, since 2003, hoped to acquire the domain name 

inspiredinteriors.com (with an ―s‖ at the end of the word ―interior‖), but the owner of that domain 

name was asking a ―high price‖ for it ˗ between $5,000 and $10,000 ˗ and therefore Mackie had 

not purchased that domain name. SAC ¶¶ 17-22. Awtry was allegedly aware that Mackie wanted 

to acquire the inspiredinteriors.com domain name and purchased it ―to be confusingly similar to 

the domain name‖ used by Inspired Interiors. Id. ¶ 30.

The Illinois Plaintiffs allege that they discovered the statements on the 

inspiredinteriors.com website October 14, 2014, when a former employee left Mackie a voicemail 

message saying he thought the Inspired Interiors website had been hacked; on the same day, 

another individual called Mackie to tell her that she had tried to access the Inspired Interiors 

website but instead had found a different website. Id. ¶¶ 25-26. According to the Illinois 

Plaintiffs, the inspiredinteriors.com website contained a photograph of Mackie that was taken 

directly from the (official) Inspired Interiors website. Id. ¶ 32. When Mackie investigated the 

WHOIS information for inspiredinteriors.com, the SAC alleges, she discovered that it was 

registered with the address ―432 Truth‖ street and remembered that her personal database 

contained a similar street address. Id. ¶¶ 46-48. She then allegedly ―learned that an unknown 

iPad Mini had  ̳synced‘ with information from her iPad through her Apple iCloud Account.‖ Id. ¶ 

49. The Illinois Plaintiffs allege that Awtry accessed Mackie‘s iCloud account without 

authorization and thereby gained access to personal and professional private information that he 

 

2

In the Motion, Awtry states that ―Ms. Mackie alleges that Mr. Awtry defamed her by posting 

negative comments on her company, Inspired Interiors‘ website.‖ Motion at 1 (citing SAC ¶¶ 33-

37). This is an inaccurate characterization of the allegations in the Illinois Action, in which the 

plaintiffs allege that the statements at issue were posted not on Inspired Interiors‘ official website 

but rather, on a website that the Illinois Plaintiffs neither owned nor operated with a confusingly 

similar name and which Awtry and Mayes had acquired with the express purpose of using to post 

the defamatory statements about Mackie. 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 2 of 28
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

used to harm Mackie and Inspired Interiors. Id. ¶¶ 64-69. 

On the basis of these factual allegations, the Illinois Plaintiffs assert claims for violations 

of: 1) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Awtry); 2) the Stored 

Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. (Awtry); 3) the Electronic Communication 

Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2510, et seq. (Awtry).; 4) the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Awtry 

and Mayes); 5) the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) (Awtry and 

Mayes); and 6) the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.

(Awtry and Mayes). In addition, Plaintiff Emily Mackie asserts a claim for defamation per se 

against both Awtry and Mayes. In the Defamation claim, Mackie alleges that the allegedly 

defamatory statement (―Find Out the Truth About Emily Mackie . . . liar, cheater‖) ―conveys the 

meaning that Ms. Mackie lies in her profession[,]‖ ―cheats in her profession[,]‖ and is 

―professionally dishonest in her capacity as an interior designer.‖ Id. ¶¶ 172-174.

B. Glassdoor.Com

Glassdoor operates a website, glassdoor.com, ―which provides a forum for current and 

former employees of companies to anonymously voice opinions regarding those businesses.

Declaration of Thomas O‘Brien in Support of Respondent Glassdoor, Inc.‘s Opposition to

Petitioner Mason Awtry‘s Motion to Enforce Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena (―O‘Brien 

Decl.‖) ¶ 2. ―An employee can express an opinion about an employer on glassdoor.com by 

posting a  ̳review,‘ in which the employee assigns the employer between one and five stars in a 

number of categories, and discusses the employer‘s  ̳pros and cons.‘‖ Id. All reviewers must 

provide an email address when they post a review on glassdoor.com. Declaration of William J. 

Frimel In Support of Respondent Glassdoor, Inc.‘s Opposition to Petitioner Mason Awtry‘s 

Motion to Enforce Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena (―Frimel Decl.‖) ¶ 3. Glassdoor‘s 

users also must agree to its Terms of Use, including its Privacy Policy. O‘Brien Decl., Ex. D 

(Glassdoor Terms of Use).

Glassdoor‘s current Privacy Policy is entitled ―How We Share Information‖ and states as 

follows:

We do not disclose your individual account or usage data to third 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 3 of 28
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

parties, except as follows:

 With your consent;

 We use affiliated and unaffiliated service providers all over the world that help 

us deliver our service and run our business subject to strict confidentiality 

agreements;

 We share aggregated usage statistics that cannot be used to identify you 

individually;

 We will disclose data if we believe in good faith that such disclosure is 

necessary (1) to comply with relevant laws or to respond to subpoenas or 

warrants or legal process served on us; (2) to enforce our Glassdoor Terms of 

Use and Privacy Policy; (3) when we believe disclosure is necessary or 

appropriate to prevent physical harm or financial loss or in connection with an 

investigation of suspected or actual illegal activity; or (4) as we otherwise deem 

necessary to protect and defend the rights or property of us, the users of our 

services, or third parties. Our general procedure with respect to civil subpoenas 

requesting user data is to require a court order, binding on Glassdoor, before we 

release such information;

 In a reorganization or sale of our company or assets, your data may be 

transferred, subject to the acquirer accepting the commitments made in this 

Statement and compliance with applicable law;

 If you apply for a particular job through Glassdoor, we will disclose your 

personal information to the employer to whom you apply;

 We may invite you to include your resume or other information in more 

generally available formats. For example, we may introduce services for 

employers, recruiters and others that rely on accessing our database of user 

information. Subject to visibility settings that you control, subscribers to those 

services will be able to view information that you post;

 We may share certain information that does not identify you personally, but 

which is unique to your use of Glassdoor, such as job titles that you have 

entered at the time of registration or on your profile; when we share such 

information, we do not link job titles with your name when we provide this 

information to others, such as advertisers, recruiters or employers.

Id., Ex. B. The Terms of Use further provide that ―[w]hile [Glassdoor has] no obligation to do so, 

[it] reserve[s] the right to take appropriate action to protect the anonymity of [its] Members against 

the enforcement of subpoenas or other information requests that seek a Member‘s electronic 

address or identifying information.‖ Id., Ex. D ¶ 7(D). 

C. The Glassdoor Posts that are the Subject of Awtry’s Subpoena 

Awtry seeks to compel disclosure of identifying information relating to four negative

reviews of Rightsize Facility Performance, Inc. (―Rightsize‖) that were posted anonymously on 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 4 of 28
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Glassdoor‘s website (―Reviews‖ or ―Glassdoor Reviews‖).

3

 Awtry Decl. ¶ 4. Awtry owns 

Rightsize. Id. ¶ 1. As discussed further below, Awtry believes, based on the timing and the 

content of these posts, that Mackie posted these reviews, posing as a former employee of Rightsize

even though she never worked for that company. Id. ¶ 5. If he is correct, this evidence would 

support his defense against Mackie as to the defamation claim asserted in the Illinois Action, he 

asserts, because it would show that Mackie is, in fact, a liar. Id. 

The four posts that are the subject of the subpoena are as follows:

 March 5, 2015 review (―the March 5 review‖): In a post with the heading ―Chaotic,‖ dated 

March 5, 2015, the reviewer describes himself/herself as a ―Former Contractor – Interior 

Designer in Chicago, IL‖ who worked at Rightsize as a contractor for ―[l]ess than a year.‖ 

The reviewer lists the ―Pros‖ of working for Rightsize as ―[m]eeting new people and being 

able to learn new things.‖ Under ―Cons‖ the reviewer states that there are ―[t]oo many 

projects going on all at once and everyone [is] running around the office like a chicken 

with its head cut off,‖ ―lead[ing] to many errors and miscommunications.‖ The reviewer 

further states that the ―location is in a really bad neighborhood‖ but that ―[a]t least the 

parking lot is gated.‖ The ―Advice to Management‖ of the reviewer is, ―Not swearing and 

yelling at employees. Makes everyone uncomfortable.‖ Awtry Decl., Ex. 1.

 July 8, 2015 review (―the July 8 review‖): In a post with the heading ―Worst Ever,‖ dated 

July 8, 2015, the reviewer describes himself/herself as a ―current employee‖ of Rightsize. 

Under ―Pros‖ the reviewer writes, ―Flexible Schedule That is all I can say.‖ Under ―Cons‖ 

the reviewer writes, ―[h]orrible micro managing management. Two brothers that think 

they rule the earth. Unrealistic expectations.‖ Under ―Advice to Management,‖ the 

reviewer writes, ―get over yourself & stop talking.‖ Id.

 

3

The subpoena, attached to the Declaration of Sarah Flotte, does not limit the identifying 

information to the four negative posts, instead requesting disclosure of such information for all of 

the reviews that were posted on Glassdoor about Rightsize. See Flotte Decl., Ex. 1 (Subpoena). 

According to Glassdoor, at the time the Motion was filed, there were nine reviews of Rightsize 

posted on glassdoor.com. Glassdoor Response at 1. In his Reply brief, Awtry clarifies that he is 

only seeking identifying information as to the four reviews of Rightsize described herein. Reply 

at 6. Henceforth, the Court construes the subpoena in the limited manner described in Awtry‘s 

Reply brief. 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 5 of 28
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

 July 20, 2015 review (―the July 20 review‖): In a post with the heading ―Contractor,‖ 

dated July 20, 2015, the reviewer describes himself/herself as a ―Former Employee.‖ 

Under ―Pros,‖ the reviewer writes, ―Despite the chaotic and unorganized office 

environment most of the people hired into this company are decent, hard working people. 

I really enjoyed the people I met while there.‖ Under ―Cons‖ the reviewer wrote, ―The 

owner is horrible. He is unprofessional and rude. Screams at his employees constantly. 

How he‘s stayed in business this long is beyond me. As an outside person looking in I 

truly felt horrible for these full time employees because he is good at hiring and the people 

he brings on are great people who‘s [sic] dreams and goals are crushed by the environment 

and the negativity associated with this place.‖ Under ―Advice to Management,‖ the 

reviewer wrote, ―Unfortunately there is not much the management team can do since the 

owner is and will always be there. I enjoyed working with the management team and I 

think they did a good job with the resources they were given. Most of them quit because 

of the environment while I was there.‖ Id.

 July 22, 2015 review (―the July 22 review‖): In a post with the heading, ―Worst Company 

Ever,‖ the reviewer describes himself/herself as a ―Former Employee – Interior Designer‖ 

who worked at Rightsize ―[l]ess than a year.‖ Under ―Pros,‖ the reviewer wrote that ―[a] 

few of the employees were friendly.‖ Under ―Cons,‖ the reviewer wrote, ―Every person 

other than a few designers are cold. It‘s clear people dislike their jobs. People sit right 

next to each other and instead of leaning over to ask a question, they send an email or 

make a phone call. Two brothers own the company. One is family oriented and somewhat 

nice. The other is quite the opposite and everyone knows it. Located in Cicero. Terrible 

location . . . .‖ Under ―Advice to Management,‖ the reviewer writes, ―I mentioned the 

name ―Rightsize Facility‖ to a major design firm in the City of Chicago a few weeks ago 

and the owner cringed. We all had a nice laugh. It was then that I thought to myself, 

 ̳Wow. Everyone knows they‘re a joke.‘ No advice necessary. They‘re digging their own 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 6 of 28
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

grave.‖ Id.

4

D. Contentions of the Parties

1. The Motion

In the Motion, Awtry argues that while the right to anonymous speech enjoys First 

Amendment protection, that right must give way to a need to discover a speaker‘s identity where 

the anonymous speech is unlawful. Motion at 4 (citing Music Group Macao Commer. Offshore 

Ltd. v. Does, 82 F. Supp. 3d 979,984 (N.D. Cal. 2015)(Beeler, J.); In re Anonymous Online 

Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 2011); Columbia Ins. Co. v. 12 Seescandy.com, 185 

F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1999); Art of Living Found. v. Does 1-10, No. 10-CV-05022-LHK, 2011 

WL 5444622, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011)). In determining where First Amendment protection 

of anonymous speech ends, Awtry contends, courts look to the nature of the speech at issue. Id. 

(citing In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1174-77 (9th Cir. 2011)). Awtry 

argues that because the comments at issue here involve ―derogatory statements about a company‘s 

owner and commercial criticism,‖ the appropriate test is the one set forth in Highfields Capital 

Mgmt., L.P. v. Doe, 385 F. Supp. 2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2005). 

In Highfields, the court adopted a two-part test, asking first whether there is a ―real 

evidentiary basis‖ for believing that the anonymous speaker has engaged in wrongful conduct that 

caused real harm to the party seeking discovery; and second, if that threshold requirement is met, 

balancing the harm resulting from an order requiring disclosure against the harm resulting from an 

order denying the request for disclosure. Id. According to Awtry, even though Highfields

 

4 As of the date Glassdoor filed its Opposition brief, five more reviews had been posted. These 

reviews were mixed. A review posted on July 29, 2015 gave Rightsize four stars and described 

the company as ―fast growing,‖ the work as ―[f]ast paced and engaging‖ and the employees as a 

―fun team.‖ Similarly, a post on February 8, 2016 entitled ―Good Opportunity‖ gives the 

company four stars and describes the company as having ―fun and hard working staff‖ and a 

―leadership team‖ that is ―very supportive and continually accommodates employee needs.‖ On 

the other hand, a review posted on December 15, 2015, entitled ―Dysfunctional and toxic place to 

work‖ gives the company one star and states that ―[t]he CEO is incredibly sleazy, unprofessional 

and will swear at you and treat you worse than a piece of dirt.‖ A review dated January 12, 2016 

also gives Rightsize one star, stating that the company has ―[p]oor management‖ and ―[t]ons of 

bureaucracy.‖ The January 12 review describes the ―Pros‖ of working there as ―[n]othing.‖ A 

review posted on January 26, 2016 also gives Rightsize one star, listing under ―Cons‖ ―No 

training, hostile workplace, owners that are completely manic, egotistical and ruthless.‖ O‘Brien 

Decl., Ex. A. 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 7 of 28
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

involved a request by a plaintiff to discover identifying information to pursue a claim against a 

defendant, as opposed to seeking identifying information to pursue a defense, the test articulated in 

that case applies here. Id. at 5. Awtry further contends both requirements of the Highfields test 

are satisfied under the circumstances here. Id.

With respect to the first requirement of Highfields, Awtry asserts that ―there can be no 

dispute that [he] has a real evidentiary basis for believing Ms. Mackie posted the negative 

comments on Glassdoor.com.‖ Id. First, Awtry contends the timing of the four Reviews supports 

the conclusion that they were posted by Mackie because all of the posts were ―made on the same 

dates as events in the contentious custody battle between Mr. Awtry and Ms. Mackie, or on a date 

in which Mr. Awtry had his son.‖ Id. (citing Awtry Decl. ¶¶ 4-16). In particular, Awtry cites the 

following specific facts relating to the timing of the Reviews in his declaration:

 On March 5, 2015, when the first Review that is the subject of Awtry‘s subpoena 

appeared, a hearing was held in the custody case. Awtry Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. 2 (Docket 

in Custody Case) at 31.

 On July 8, 2015, when the second Review that is the subject of Awtry‘s subpoena 

appeared, a hearing was held in the custody case and Awtry had his son. Awtry 

Decl. ¶ 11 & Ex. 2 at 50.

 On July 20, 2015, when the third Review that is the subject of Awtry‘s subpoena 

appeared, an emergency motion was filed by Awtry in the custody case. Awtry 

Decl. ¶ 13 & Ex. 2 at 50.

 On July 22, 2015, when the fourth Review that is the subject of Awtry‘s subpoena 

appeared, a hearing was held in the custody case and Awtry had his son. Awtry 

Decl. ¶ 16.

In addition to the timing of the Reviews, Awtry points to the fact that in two of the Reviews (the 

March 5 review and the July 22 review), the authors identify themselves as interior designers, 

supporting the conclusion that Mackie (who is an interior designer) posted these reviews. Motion 

at 5. Awtry also argues that there is a real evidentiary basis for believing Mackie posted the 

Reviews because they are similar to the defamatory statements that Mr. Awtry is alleged to have 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 8 of 28
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

made in the Illinois Action about Mackie‘s business. Id. 

Awtry also asserts there can be no dispute that the identifying information he seeks would 

support his defense against the defamation claim in the Illinois Action as his primary defense to 

that claim is that Mackie is a liar. Id. at 6. As truth is an absolute defense to defamation under 

Illinois law, he asserts, the fact that Mackie posed as a former employee of Rightsize would 

support Awtry‘s main defense to that claim. Id. 

Awtry further contends that the second step of the Highfields test, which requires the Court 

to balance the harm of disclosure against the harm of protecting the anonymity of the speaker, 

points in favor of ordering that his subpoena be enforced. Id. Specifically, Awtry argues the 

disclosure will assist him in defending against serious allegations of defamation while ―causing 

relatively minimal harm to the anonymous speaker‘s First Amendment and privacy rights.‖ Id. at 

7. Awtry contends ―disclosure of contested information would not chill true employees from 

posting on Glassdoor.com because disclosure would be limited to those situations when there is 

evidence that the post was fraudulent.‖ Id. (citing Art of Living Found. v. Does 1-10, No. 10-CV05022-LHK, 2011 WL 5444622, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011)). According to Awtry, ―the 

possibility that the anonymous online speaker is not actually an employee, and thus not a true 

critic, negates the likelihood that this would prevent actual employees from posting on 

Glassdoor.com‖ and indeed, would ―actually help Glassdoor‘s reputation as only allowing actual 

employees to post on their site.‖ Id. 

Awtry also argues that another factor that weighs in favor of disclosure is Glassdoor‘s 

Privacy Policy. Id. Awtry contends that under Glassdoor‘s Privacy Policy, users do not have a 

heightened expectation of privacy because it is expressly stated that Glassdoor will ―disclose data 

if [it] believe[s] in good faith that such disclosure is necessary to comply with relevant laws or to 

respond to subpoenas or warrants or legal process served on [Glassdoor].‖ Id. (citing Doe I v. 

Individuals, 561 F. Supp. 2d 249, 250 (D. Conn. 2008)).

Awtry also argues that the facts here are distinguishable from those in Highfields – in 

which the court found that disclosure of identifying information about anonymous posters who 

posted disparaging information about the plaintiff‘s company was not warranted – because the 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 9 of 28
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

posts in this case were serious rather than sarcastic. Id. at 8. Awtry points out that in Highfields, 

the court relied on the fact that the posts at issue were so obviously sarcastic that they were 

unlikely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the plaintiff. Id. (citing 385 F. Supp. 2d at 

981). In contrast, where statements are likely to be taken seriously, Awtry asserts, the balancing in 

Highfields tends to favor disclosure. Id. (citing Fodor v. Doe, No. 3:10-CV-0798-RCJ VPC, 2011 

WL 1629572, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 27, 2011)).

Finally, Awtry contends the Motion should be granted because his request is ―specific and 

narrowly tailored‖ in that he is seeking identifying information for only four posts out of the more 

than 8 million reviews Glassdoor has compiled. Id. And if the Court has concerns about 

disclosure, Awtry asserts, it can enter a protective order limiting disclosure to the parties in this 

action and their counsel of record. Id. 

2. Opposition

Glassdoor argues that the Motion should be denied on the basis that the information Awtry 

seeks is protected under the First Amendment. Opposition at 1 (citing McIntyre v. Ohio Elections 

Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995)). First, Glassdoor challenges Awtry‘s assertion that Highfields

sets forth the appropriate standard for determining whether the information sought in the subpoena 

should be disclosed. Id. Glassdoor contends Highfields is applicable only when a plaintiff claims 

an anonymous defendant has engaged in wrongful conduct – not when the person whose identity 

sought may be a non-party to the litigation. Id. According to Glassdoor, where the party seeking 

disclosure can establish a prima facie case of liability on the part of an anonymous speaker, that 

speaker‘s interest in remaining anonymous diminishes because the speaker should not be 

permitted to use anonymity to hide from tort liability. Id. at 5 (citing Art of Living, 2011 WL 

544622 at * 4). In that scenario, a plaintiff will be denied the ability to seek any redress unless 

the identity of the speaker is disclosed, Glassdoor asserts. Id. In contrast, discovering the identity 

of the anonymous reviewers on Glassdoor will not ―completely deprive [Awtry] of the ability to 

defend against Mackie‘s claims,‖ Glassdoor contends. Id. Glassdoor notes that ―all of the cases 

Awtry relies on to support his claim that the Reviews met the Highfields requirements . . . dealt 

with situations in which the plaintiff sought to assert some cause of action against the anonymous 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 10 of 28
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

speakers, not to substantiate a potential defense to a third party‘s claims.‖ Id. (citing In re 

Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 2011); Music Group Macao Comm. 

Offshore Ltd. v. Does, 82 F. Supp. 3d 979, 985 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (denying motion to enforce 

subpoena seeking anonymous speakers‘ identities because plaintiff ―has not shown a  ̳real 

evidentiary basis‘ for its defamation claim against‖ defendant); Art of Living, 2011 WL 5444622, 

*10; Fodor v. Doe, No. 3:10-CV-0798, 2011 WL 1629572, *4 (D. Nev. Apr. 27, 2011); Doe I v. 

Individuals, 561 F. Supp. 2d 249, 256 (D. Conn. 2008)). 

Glassdoor argues that the proper analysis for situations such as this, where a party seeks 

discovery of the identities of individuals who may be nonparties, is set forth in Doe v. 

2TheMart.com, Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001). Id. at 7. That case sets forth a 

stricter test, Glassdoor contends, and permits disclosure only in ―exceptional circumstances‖ 

where a ―compelling need‖ for disclosure of the identity of the anonymous speaker outweighs the 

speaker‘s First Amendment rights. Id. To determine whether this high hurdle is met, according 

to Glassdoor, courts consider whether ―(1) the subpoena seeking the information was issued in 

good faith and not for any improper purpose, (2) the information sought relates to a core claim or 

defense, (3) the identifying information is directly and materially relevant to that claim or defense, 

and (4) information sufficient to establish or to disprove that claim or defense is unavailable from 

any other source.‖ Id. (quoting Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d at 1095). Glassdoor 

contends that Awtry fails to satisfy the strict standard of 2TheMart.com but that even under the 

Highfields test, the Motion should be denied.

With respect to the first requirement of Highfields, Glassdoor argues that Awtry fails to 

establish, with competent evidence, that there is a ―real evidentiary basis‖ for concluding that the 

anonymous speech at issue will substantiate his ―truth defense‖ to the defamation claim Mackie 

asserts against him in the Illinois Action. Id. at 9-10. Glassdoor advances two arguments in 

support of this contention. First, it argues that even if Mackie posted the Glassdoor Reviews, there 

is no evidence that she did so in her capacity as an interior designer; rather, Awtry contends the 

posts were aimed at gaining an advantage in the parties‘ custody dispute. Id. Because the 

defamation claim in the Illinois Action is based on the allegation that the allegedly defamatory

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 11 of 28
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

statements conveyed the meaning that Mackie is professionally dishonest, Glassdoor asserts, the 

information sought here will not provide a complete defense to that claim. Id. 

Glassdoor further contends that the ―real evidentiary basis‖ requirement is not satisfied 

because Awtry‘s evidence that Mackie likely posted the Glassdoor Reviews is unpersuasive. Id. at 

10. First, Glassdoor argues that Awtry‘s reliance on the timing of the posts is misplaced. Id. 

According to Glassdoor, Awtry points to the fact that the reviews at issue were posted on days 

when he had his son and/or there were hearings in the custody case, but fails to offer any 

explanation as to why either of these would ―tend to indicate Mackie was responsible for the 

Reviews.‖ Id. Glassdoor notes that there is no evidence that Mackie ever attempted to use the 

posts in the custody battle and it is not even clear how the posts could have been used by Mackie 

in that dispute. Id. As to the fact that two of the reviews were posted by self-described ―interior 

designers,‖ Glassdoor argues that there is nothing remarkable about that ―as Rightsize, according 

to its website,  ̳specialize[s] in office interior design.‘‖ Id. (quoting Frimel Decl., Ex. C (page from 

Rightsize website)). In short, Glassdoor contends, Awtry‘s assertion that the posts are likely by 

Mackie is mere speculation, which is insufficient to support disclosure under both Highfields and 

2TheMart.com. Id.

5

 

5 According to Glassdoor, in the meet and confer discussions with Awtry that preceded this 

Motion, its counsel advised Awtry that the information in its possession ―strongly suggests 

Mackie did not author the Reviews.‖ Opposition at 5 (citing Frimel Decl., Ex. B (email dated 

February 29, 2016 from Frimel to Flotte, stating that if Awtry agreed to withdraw the Motion 

Glassdoor would be ―glad to confirm in writing what would have gone in a declaration making 

clear that Mackie is not the author of any of the reviews‖)). Glassdoor has also provided a 

declaration from counsel explaining the basis for its conclusion that the reviews were not posted 

by Mackie. See O‘Brien Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. In particular, O‘Brien states:

3. Rightsize Facility Performance, Inc.‘s (―Rightsize‖) reviewers on 

glassdoor.com, like all authors of employer reviews on the site, 

provided e-mail addresses to Glassdoor when they posted their 

reviews. I retrieved the e-mail addresses associated with the four 

reviews referenced in Petitioner Mason Awtry‘s petition to compel 

compliance with his subpoena to Glassdoor (specifically, the 

reviews of Rightsize on glassdoor.com dated March 5, 2015, July 8,

2015, July 20, 2015, and July 22, 2015).

4. All four of the Reviews‘ authors‘ e-mail addresses contained 

proper names, none of which was Emily Mackie, and through 

further research I located professional profiles associated with all 

four names referenced in those e-mail addresses. The profiles of 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 12 of 28
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Even assuming that Awtry satisfied the first requirement of Highfields, Glassdoor asserts, 

the balancing required in the second step of the analysis also does not support disclosure of the 

identities of the anonymous reviewers. Id. at 11. First, Glassdoor argues that requiring disclosure 

would have a substantial chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech. Id. In particular, 

even assuming there would be no chilling effect where there is evidence that posts are fraudulent, 

there is no such evidence here, Glassdoor asserts, for the reasons discussed above. Id. Moreover, 

Glassdoor contends, even if only ―fraudulent posts‖ were subject to disclosure, the chilling effect 

would still be significant because ―[a] typical Glassdoor user has no way of knowing, when they 

post a review, whether a litigant like Awtry may later seek discovery of the user‘s identity based 

solely on his belief that a litigation adversary authored the review.‖ Id. As a result, Glassdoor 

argues, ―compelling Glassdoor to identify the Does will foster uncertainty among reviewers on 

glassdoor.com as to whether their names will become discoverable in civil litigation, and whether 

they will become the target of lawsuits.‖ Id. (citing Art of Living, 2011 WL 5444622 at *7; 

Highfields, 385 F. Supp. 2d at 980-81). 

Second, to the extent Awtry contends the information he seeks will support his defense 

against Mackie‘s defamation claim, Glassdoor argues that the subpoena is not ―properly tailored to 

achieve that goal‖ because it seeks identifying information as to all of the reviews of Rightsize. 

Id. (citing Flotte Decl., Ex. 1 (Subpoena)). ―Because learning the identities of reviewers other 

than Mackie would do nothing to support Awtry‘s defense that  ̳Mackie is a liar,‘‖ Glassdoor 

argues, ―the subpoena is substantially overbroad‖ and ―is not  ̳necessary to enable [Awtry] to 

protect against or remedy serious wrongs.‘‖ Id. (quoting Highfields, 385 F. Supp. 2d at 976). 

Glassdoor asserts that at a minimum, the subpoena should be limited to documents ―tending to 

show Mackie wrote the Reviews.‖ Id.

Third, Glassdoor argues that Awtry has not demonstrated that enforcing the subpoena is 

 

three of those individuals state that they previously worked at 

Rightsize, and the profile of the remaining individual states that they 

worked in the same industry as Rightsize.

O‘Brien Decl., ¶¶ 3-4. 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 13 of 28
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

necessary to remedy serious wrongs because he does not claim that he has made any attempt to 

obtain the information he seeks by other means, such as an internal investigation or by posing 

questions relating to the reviews to Mackie in a deposition. Id. at 13.

Fourth, Glassdoor rejects Awtry‘s reliance on its Privacy Policy, arguing that Awtry 

omitted key language from the Privacy Policy stating that Glassdoor‘s typical practice is to seek a 

court order before complying with a subpoena. Id. at 14 (citing O‘Brien Decl., Ex. B). Rather 

than diminishing its users‘ expectations of privacy, Glassdoor asserts, its stated privacy policy 

bolsters that expectation. Id. Nor does Doe I v. Individuals, 561 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D. Conn. 2008), 

cited by Awtry, support a contrary result, Glassdoor argues. Id. In particular, according to 

Glassdoor, the privacy policy in that case did not state that the party from which disclosure was 

sought did not comply with subpoenas without a court order. Id.

Fifth, Glassdoor argues that it is irrelevant whether the statements made on glassdoor.com

are sarcastic because Awtry is not claiming that the posts are defamatory in the first instance. 

Rather, he is merely arguing that Mackie‘s representation that she worked at Rightsize supports 

his defense. Id. at 15. Even if the content of the statements were relevant, Glassdoor asserts, a 

reasonable person would view them as non-actionable opinion. Id. at 16-18. 

Finally, Glassdoor argues that the ability to enter a protective order to protect the identities 

of the anonymous reviewers is not sufficient to protect the First Amendment rights that are 

implicated by Awtry‘s subpoena. Id. at 19. Rather, regardless of whether the Court enters a 

protective order or not, disclosure is only warranted if Awtry can satisfy the appropriate test under 

the First Amendment, as was stated in the case upon which Awtry relies, Signature Management 

Team, LLC v. Automatic, Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1145, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2013). 

3. Reply

In his Reply brief, Awtry argues that Glassdoor has exaggerated the burden imposed under 

Highfields for demonstrating that the first requirement of the test is met, that is, that there is a real 

evidentiary basis for disclosure. Reply at 2. According to Awtry, ―the Highfields test is less 

demanding than other tests and does not demand evidence that would be sufficient to survive a 

hypothetical dispositive motion, as Glassdoor would have the court believe.‖ Id. (citing Music 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 14 of 28
15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Group v. Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd., 82 F. Supp. 3d 979, 983 (N.D. Cal. 2015)). This 

lenient standard is met here, according to Awtry. Id. 

First, he contends, Glassdoor is incorrect in its argument that the posts on glassdoor.com

are not relevant to Awtry‘s defamation defense because they do not address the alleged false 

impression that Mackie is professionally dishonest. Id. This is because Illinois law requires only 

that an alleged defamatory statement be ―substantially true‖ for the truth defense to apply. Id. at 3 

(citations omitted). Moreover, Awtry asserts, to the extent two of the posts identified the reviewer 

as an interior designer, the postings directly impute Mackie‘s honesty as an interior designer. Id. 

Second, Awtry rejects Glassdoor‘s contention that his basis for believing Mackie was the 

individual who posted the reviews at issue is speculative. Id. at 4. Rather, Awtry argues, his basis 

for believing the posts were by Mackie is compelling. Id. In particular, as he argued in the 

Motion, Awtry points to the timing of the posts, the fact that two posts identified the reviewer as 

an interior designer, and the fact that the Glassdoor Reviews, like the alleged posts by Awtry, 

contained speech disparaging Awtry‘s business. Id. Awtry also dismisses as ―vague and inclusive 

[sic]‖ the evidence Glassdoor has offered to show that the Reviews were not, in fact, posted by

Mackie. Id. Awtry notes that the email addresses retrieved by Glassdoor‘s counsel were 

―unverified‖ and that the ―further research‖ conducted by Glassdoor‘s counsel is not described in 

any detail. Id. In short, Awtry contends, Glassdoor‘s own investigation as to the identity of the 

reviewers is ―guesswork.‖ Id. at 5. 

Awtry also rejects Glassdoor‘s arguments aimed at the second part of the Highfields test, 

requiring a balancing of the interests at stake in connection with the requested disclosure of 

identifying information for the Glassdoor posts. Awtry reiterates his argument that ―little harm 

would result from the limited disclosure sought in this case‖ because if Mackie posted the 

comments, she is a liar. Id. at 5. Awtry also clarifies that while the subpoena could be read to 

require disclosure of identifying information as to all posts on Glassdoor about Rightsize, he is 

only seeking identifying information as to the reviews posted on March 5, 2015, July 8, 2015, July 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 15 of 28
16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

20, 2015 and July 22, 2015. Id. at 6.6

Awtry also rejects Glassdoor‘s argument that the subpoena should not be enforced because 

he has not shown that he attempted to learn the identity of the reviewers from other sources. Id. at 

7-9. Awtry notes that he did investigate this question by comparing the dates of the posts with his 

personal calendar, which revealed what he contends is the suspicious timing of the reviews. Id. at 

7-8. He also states in his Reply brief (though not in his declaration) that he ―talked to the other 

executive-level employees at Rightsize in an effort to uncover the identity of the authors‘ posts‖ 

but that ―[t]hese conversations . . . did not result in any identification.‖ Id. at 8. Finally, Awtry 

rejects Glassdoor‘s assertion that he could have asked Mackie herself if she posted the reviews 

through deposition questions, representing that he could not have deposed Mackie in the Illinois 

Action because ―discovery is stayed [in that Action] except with limited exception‖ pending 

resolution of a motion to dismiss that was filed last May and has not yet been decided. Id.

Awtry argues that it is irrelevant whether the posts on glassdoor.com are opinions because 

he is not seeking to assert a claim for defamation against the authors of the Reviews. Id. at 9. 

Awtry rejects Glassdoor‘s contention that the possibility of entering a protective order 

should have no bearing on the Court‘s decision, reiterating his position that this is a significant 

consideration. Id. at 10 (citing Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC v. Automatic, Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 

1145, 1159 (N.D. Cal. 2013)). He also emphasizes that he is not seeking disclosure of identifying 

information about the anonymous reviewers in order to pursue claims against them but merely to 

defend himself in the Illinois Action. Id.

According to Awtry, disclosure of identifying information will have only a ―minimal 

 

6

In a footnote, Awtry suggests that Glassdoor ―would have this Court believe that there are 

thousands of posts about Rightsize‖ whereas there were only ten at the time the Reply brief was 

filed. Id. at 6 n. 1. Awtry does not cite any particular statement in Glassdoor‘s brief, however, 

that either states or implies as much. Moreover, Glassdoor states in the ―Fact‖ section of its brief 

that ―[a]s of the date of Awtry‘s motion, nine reviews of Rightsize . . . had been posted on 

glassdoor.com by anonymous individuals.‖ Opposition at 4. There appears to be no basis for 

Awtry‘s suggestion that Glassdoor misrepresented the number of posts about Rightsize on its 

website. 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 16 of 28
17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

chilling effect‖ in any event because the subpoena is only directed at those who falsely claim to 

have been an employee, thus ―negat[ing] the likelihood that enforcing the subpoena would prevent 

actual employees from posting on Glassdoor.‖ Id. at 11. 

Awtry repeats his argument that the Privacy Policy posted by Glassdoor reduces users‘ 

expectation of privacy. Id. at 11-12.

Finally, Awtry argues that although the stricter standard of 2TheMart.com does not apply, 

he could satisfy that standard. Id. at 12-13.

4. Glassdoor’s Objection to Reply

On March 14, 2016, Glassdoor filed an objection to Awtry‘s representation that discovery 

is stayed in the Illinois Action and therefore, he could not inquire of Mackie through discovery in 

that action as to whether she was the author of the glassdoor.com posts that are the subject of 

Awtry‘s subpoena. Docket No. 13 (―Objection‖). To the extent Awtry is impliedly asking the 

Court to take judicial notice of facts relating to the Illinois Action pursuant to Rule 201 of the 

Federal Rules of Evidence, Glassdoor argues, the request should be denied because Awtry has not 

provided any documents filed in the Illinois Action reflecting that discovery has been stayed in 

that case. Id. Glassdoor further contends Awtry has misstated the contents of documents filed in 

the Illinois Action. Id. In particular, according to Glassdoor, Awtry did not seek dismissal of 

Mackie‘s defamation claim in the pending motion to dismiss, the Illinois Court has expressly held 

that the parties are permitted to exchange written discovery relating to the claims that are not the 

subject of the motion to dismiss, and the Illinois Court did not expressly prohibit depositions 

relating to those claims. Id.; see also Declaration of William J. Frimal, Docket No. 13-1 (―Frimel 

Objection Decl.‖) ¶¶ 2-3 & Ex. A (Motion to Dismiss in Illinois Action), B (May 7, 2015 Order in 

Illinois Action expressly permitting written discovery on claims that are not the subject of Motion 

to Dismiss).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard under Rule 45

Under Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party seeking 

enforcement of a subpoena may bring a motion in ―the court for the district where compliance is 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 17 of 28
18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

required for an order compelling production or inspection.‖ Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i).

B. General Principals Relating to First Amendment Protection of Anonymous 

Speech 

The Supreme Court has recognized that ―an author‘s decision to remain anonymous, like 

other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of 

the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.‖ McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 

514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995). Indeed, ―[t]he right to speak anonymously was of fundamental 

importance to the establishment of our Constitution.‖ Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 

1088, 1092 (W.D. Wash. 2001) (citing McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 341-42). In particular, ―Justice 

Black . . . reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution 

advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names.‖ McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 

342 (citing Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960)). So too were the responses of the antifederalists, which were published by authors who used such fictitious names as ―Centinel,‖ 

―Brutus‖ and ―The Federal Farmer.‖ In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1172-73 

(9th Cir. 2011). 

Further, it is well-established that anonymous speech on the Internet, like other types of 

anonymous speech, enjoys First Amendment protection. In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 

F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2011)(―online speech stands on the same footing as other speech—there 

is  ̳no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied‘ to online 

speech‖) (quoting Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997)). As the Ninth 

Circuit has explained, ―the ability to speak anonymously on the Internet promotes the robust 

exchange of ideas and allows individuals to express themselves freely without  ̳fear of economic 

or official retaliation . . . [or] concern about social ostracism.‘‖ Id. (quoting McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 

341-42). 

First Amendment protection of anonymous speech ―is not unlimited, however, and the 

degree of scrutiny varies depending on the circumstances and the type of speech at issue.‖ Id. 

Political speech is considered to be ―core‖ speech and is afforded the highest level of First 

Amendment protection. McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 346. Online messages such as the ones at issue 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 18 of 28
19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

here are also entitled to some level of First Amendment protection, even if the hurdle for 

overcoming that protection is less stringent than it is for political speech. See In re Anonymous 

Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168 at 1177; see also Highfields Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Doe, 385 F. 

Supp. 2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (finding that identity of individual who anonymously posted 

derogatory comments about a company on an online message board was protected from disclosure 

under the First Amendment); Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10, No. 10-cv-5022 LHK, 2011 

WL 5444622, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (finding the standard articulated in Highfields

applied to anonymously posted online commentary criticizing the plaintiff‘s organization). 

A ―variety of standards to benchmark whether an anonymous speaker‘s identity should be 

revealed‖ have been applied by federal district courts and state courts. In re Anonymous Online 

Speakers, 661 F.3d at 1175. In Highfields Capital Management L.P. v. Doe, the court granted a 

motion to quash by an ―unidentified defendant,‖ finding that the appropriate approach to balancing 

the various competing interests implicated in that case ―has two components, each essential.‖ 385 

F. Supp. 2d at 975. First, the plaintiff must persuade the court that there is a ―real evidentiary 

basis for believing that the defendant has engaged in wrongful conduct that has caused real harm 

to the interests of the plaintiff that the laws plaintiff has invoked were intended to protect.‖ Id. 

The court explained,

Allegation and speculation are insufficient. The standards that 

inform Rule 8 and Rule 12(b)(6) offer too little protection to the 

defendant‘s competing interests. Thus, the plaintiff must adduce 

competent evidence-and the evidence plaintiff adduces must address 

all of the inferences of fact that plaintiff would need to prove in 

order to prevail under at least one of the causes of action plaintiff 

asserts. In other words, the evidence that plaintiff adduces must, if 

unrebutted, tend to support a finding of each fact that is essential to 

a given cause of action.

Id. If this evidentiary burden is met, the Highfields court held, the court goes on to the second 

component of the test, which requires the court to ―balance the parties‘ competing interests to 

determine whether the extent of the harm to defendant‘s First Amendment and privacy interests 

could be justified by the magnitude of the contribution that enforcing the subpoena likely would 

make to the interests plaintiff seeks to advance through the litigation.‖ Id. at 980.

In Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1094 (W.D. Wash. 2001), the court 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 19 of 28
20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

also balanced the interests of the party seeking disclosure against First Amendment considerations. 

In that case, however, the anonymous speakers were not alleged to be unidentified defendants but 

instead, non-party witnesses whose identities were sought by the defendant to support one of its 

affirmative defenses. The court reasoned that in that context, ―[t]he standard for disclosing the 

identity of a non-party witness must be higher . . . [because] [w]hen the anonymous Internet user 

is not a party to the case, the litigation can go forward without the disclosure of their identity.‖ Id. 

at 1095. ―Therefore,‖ the court held, ―non-party disclosure is only appropriate in the exceptional 

case where the compelling need for the discovery sought outweighs the First Amendment rights of 

the anonymous speaker.‖ Id.; see also Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d at 1176 (apparently 

approving the higher standard articulated in 2TheMart.com, stating that in that case the district

court ―recognized that a higher standard should apply when a subpoena seeks the identity of an 

anonymous Internet user who is not a party to the underlying litigation‖). The court in 

2TheMart.com went on to articulate four factors courts should consider in determining whether 

this standard has been met, asking whether:

(1) the subpoena seeking the information was issued in good faith 

and not for any improper purpose, (2) the information sought relates 

to a core claim or defense, (3) the identifying information is directly 

and materially relevant to that claim or defense, and (4) information 

sufficient to establish or to disprove that claim or defense is 

unavailable from any other source.

Id. It explained that the test ―provides a flexible framework‖ in which the weight of each factor 

depends on the circumstances of the case. Id. 

C. Whether Awtry’s Subpoena Should be Enforced 

1. What Standard Should be Applied to Awtry’s Subpoena

The parties do not dispute that the anonymous speech contained in the Glassdoor Reviews 

is the sort of speech that is entitled to some degree of protection under the First Amendment. See, 

.e.g., Highfields, 385 F. Supp. 2d at 976. The more difficult question is determining the 

applicable standard to apply in balancing Awtry‘s interest in disclosure against the First 

Amendment considerations that weigh in favor of denying Awtry‘s Motion. The Court notes that 

the circumstances in this case are not on all fours with those in either Highfields or 2TheMart.com. 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 20 of 28
21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In Highfields, the court addressed whether it should enforce a subpoena by the plaintiff, 

Highfields Capital, L.P., seeking disclosure of the identity of an ―unidentified defendant‖ who 

had posted comments, which ―[could] be interpreted as expressing disapproval or criticism of 

Highfields Capital – mocking its arrogance and condescension and suggesting that its high-priced 

investment advice is quite vulnerable to being both biased and wrong‖ ˗ using the screen name 

―highfieldscapital.‖ 385 F. Supp. 2d at 972, 975. The plaintiff sought to assert claims against the 

anonymous speaker for violation of its trademark rights and for unfair competition. Thus, the 

anonymous speaker – whoever that might be – was the person whose statements were alleged to 

be unlawful. Under those circumstances, the court could reasonably conclude that whoever posted

the anonymous comments was entitled to a lower degree of protection under the First Amendment 

than would otherwise be available (although the court ultimately concluded that the First 

Amendment rights of the anonymous speaker outweighed the interests of the plaintiff 

nonetheless). Here, in contrast, the anonymous speaker is not alleged to have said anything that it 

unlawful on its face; indeed, even the representation in the posts that the speaker worked (or 

works) for Rightsize may be true as Mackie may not have been responsible for the posts. In other 

words, the possibility that a nonparty whose speech was in no way wrongful or unlawful might 

lose his or her First Amendment protection was not at issue in Highfields. 

On the other hand, the subpoena in 2TheMart.com sought identifying information as to 

anonymous speakers who clearly were not parties to the action; rather, as discussed above, the 

anonymous speakers were witnesses whose testimony might support of one of the defendants‘

defenses. 140 F. Supp. 2d at 1089-90. Because the speakers were not parties, the court reasoned, 

their identities were ―not needed to allow the litigation to proceed.‖ Id. at 1097. Thus, the facts 

of 2TheMart also are not entirely on point because in this case, the anonymous speaker might be a 

party to this action (if it is Mackie). 

While neither case is directly on point, the circumstances here implicate considerations of 

both Highfields and 2TheMart.com and therefore, the Court draws on both in determining whether 

Awtry‘s subpoena should be enforced. First, although Highfields focused on whether allegedly

unlawful speech by an anonymous speaker warranted abridging the anonymous speaker‘s First 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 21 of 28
22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Amendment rights to allow a potential plaintiff to assert a claim against that speaker, the Ninth 

Circuit has recognized – at least implicitly – that the First Amendment rights of a plaintiff may 

also give way to the need to give the defendant ―a fair opportunity to defend itself in court.‖ In re 

Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d at 1175 (citing Lefkoe v. Jos. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 557 

F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 2009)). To the extent that the identifying information sought in Awtry‘s 

subpoena may reveal that the Reviews were posted by Mackie, who is a party to the Illinois 

litigation, the analysis in Highfields offers a helpful framework for addressing whether Awtry‘s 

subpoena should be enforced. 

At the same time, the Court must factor into its analysis the possibility that the Reviews 

were not posted by Mackie, but rather, by individuals whose speech was neither unlawful nor even 

relevant to the Illinois Action in any way, implicating the serious First Amendment concerns that 

were at issue in 2TheMart.com. Therefore, the Court pays particular heed to the question of 

whether there is a ―real evidentiary basis‖ for concluding that Mackie is the source of the 

anonymous reviews in applying the Highfields test. In addition, in conducting the balancing of 

First Amendment considerations against Awtry‘s interests in the Illinois Action, the Court takes 

into account the possibility that Mackie is not the author of the Reviews, looking to the factors 

articulated in 2TheMart.com for guidance.

2. “Real Evidentiary Basis”

In Highfields, the court asked whether there was a ―real evidentiary basis for believing that 

the defendant ha[d] engaged in wrongful conduct that ha[d] caused real harm to the interests of the 

plaintiff that the laws plaintiff has invoked were intended to protect.‖ Id. Here, the Court 

modifies this requirement, drawing in part on 2The Mart.com, to ask whether there is a real 

evidentiary basis for believing that the anonymous speakers engaged in wrongful conduct that is 

material to a legitimate defense in the Illinois Action. This question can be broken down into two 

inquiries. First, is there a real evidentiary basis for believing that the Reviews were written by 

Mackie; and second, if Mackie did write these reviews, is there a real evidentiary basis for 

concluding that they are material to the defense Awtry seeks to assert to the defamation claim in 

the Illinois Action. 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 22 of 28
23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Starting with the second question, the Court is not persuaded by Glassdoor‘s argument that 

the anonymous reviews are not material to Awtry‘s truth defense because they have no bearing on 

whether she is professionally dishonest. It is true that the defamation claim alleges that the 

statement that she was a ―liar‖ conveyed the false impression that she was professionally 

dishonest. The Court does not find any basis, however, for drawing a distinction between 

professional dishonesty and dishonesty in general for the purposes of determining whether the 

anonymous reviews -- if they are by Mackie-- would support Awtry‘s truth defense. Nor has 

Glassdoor pointed to any authority that suggests that such a distinction would be appropriate under 

Illinois law. 

Nonetheless, the Court concludes that the ―real evidentiary basis‖ requirement has not been 

met because, with respect to the first question -- whether Awtry has a real evidentiary basis for 

believing that the anonymous reviews are by Mackie – the reasons he has offered are entirely 

speculative. First, Awtry‘s reliance on the timing of the posts is unpersuasive. In particular, he 

has offered no explanation (much less evidence) for his assertion that the reviews likely were 

posted by Mackie because the dates of the reviews correspond to dates in which Awtry had their 

son with him or in which events in their custody case occurred. Nor is there any logical reason 

why either of these correlations would tend to support the conclusion that Mackie posted the 

reviews.

Similarly, Awtry‘s reliance on the fact that two of the posts state that the reviewer is an 

interior designer is misplaced as Rightsize is a company that specializes in office interior design 

and presumably employs numerous interior designers. Although it is true that Mackie is an 

interior designer, so too are many of the current and former employees of Rightsize. The fact that 

two Rightsize reviewers identified themselves as such does not offer a sound basis for concluding 

that these reviews were posted by Mackie or even render that possibility more likely to any 

meaningful degree. 

Awtry‘s third argument, in which he states that the Glassdoor Reviews are similar to the 

alleged defamatory posts by Mr. Awtry in the underlying litigation, also has no merit. While there 

may be some similarity between Awtry‘s alleged conduct and Mackie‘s conduct if the reviews 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 23 of 28
24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

posted on glassdoor.com were, indeed, written by Mackie, that similarity does not increase the 

likelihood that Mackie did, in fact, write them. Under this logic, the criticisms of Rightsize in 

several subsequent reviews posted on glassdoor.com would indicate that Mackie was likely the 

author of those reviews as well. See, e.g. O‘Brien Decl., Ex. A, January 26, 2016 review (―hostile 

workplace, owners that are completely manic, egotistical and ruthless‖); January 12, 2016 review 

(―Poor management‖); December 15, 2015 review (―The CEO is incredibly sleazy, unprofessional, 

and will swear at you and treat you worse than a piece of dirt‖). Awtry does not seek identifying 

information relating to any of these reviewers, however, and apparently does not suspect that 

Mackie wrote any of them. In short, the Court finds nothing about the content of the Glassdoor 

Reviews that lends support to the conclusion that they were more likely than not posted by Mackie 

as opposed to an actual employee (current or former) of Rightsize.

Finally, while Glassdoor‘s investigation of the identities of the anonymous reviewers is not 

conclusive, the fact that the email addresses associated with the posts included names of 

individuals who had online profiles listing their employment at Rightsize suggests that it is 

unlikely, at best, that the Reviews were posted by Mackie. Awtry has not attempted to rebut this 

evidence; nor has he pointed to any evidence whatsoever that would suggest Mackie might have 

not only falsely posed as a Rightsize employee in the Glasssdoor Reviews but also used a 

fictitious email address and/or created fake online profiles to hide the truth.

Therefore, the Court finds that Awtry does not have a real evidentiary basis for suspecting 

that Mackie was the author of the anonymous Glassdoor Reviews. Instead, the justifications 

Awtry offers for his suspicions are flimsy and unpersuasive. For this reason alone, the subpoena 

should not be enforced. 

3. Balancing of First Amendment Concerns and Awtry’s Interest in Asserting a 

Truth Defense Against the Defamation Claim in the Illinois Action

Even assuming that Awtry has demonstrated that there is a real evidentiary basis for 

believing that the anonymous Reviews were posted by Mackie, the balancing of First Amendment 

concerns against Awtry‘s interests in obtaining the identifying information he seeks also points 

away from enforcing the subpoena.

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 24 of 28
25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Taking into account the context of Awtry‘s request, the First Amendment implications of 

the disclosure he seeks are considerable. The critical speech in the Glassdoor Reviews is, 

undisputedly, protected by the First Amendment. See Art of Living Foundation, No. 10-CV05022-LHK, 2011 WL 5444622, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011). Further, there is a significant 

likelihood that ordering disclosure of the identities of the reviewers who posted the Glassdoor 

Reviews will result in a substantial chilling effect because of the weak showing that Awtry has 

made linking the Reviews to Mackie. Even if it turns out that the Reviews were posted by 

Mackie, if courts are willing to enforce subpoenas like Awtry‘s based on what amounts to

speculation that the anonymous reviewer is only posing as a current or former employee, 

individuals who are in fact current or former employees are likely to be reluctant to post the 

candid reviews that Glassdoor tries to offer its users. Moreover, contrary to Awtry‘s assertions, the 

Privacy Policy posted on Glassdoor.com would not lead users to expect that identifying 

information about them will simply be handed over when requested in litigation. Rather, 

Glassdoor clearly states that its typical practice is to require a court order before it will reveal the 

identities of those posting reviews. 

The expectation that the identities of reviewers will remain anonymous can also be inferred 

from the obvious sensitivity of that information. Here for example, one of the Reviews (the July 8 

Review, describing the company as ―Worst Ever‖ and complaining about the ―[h]orrible 

micromanaging management‖ by ―two brothers that think they rule the earth‖) is posted by an 

individual who is described as a current employee of Rightsize. It is highly unlikely that the 

individual who posted that review – assuming it turns out not to be Mackie – would have done so 

had she believed there was a possibility her identity would be disclosed to the CEO whose 

micromanagement she disparaged in her Review. Nor is it likely that her concerns would be 

alleviated by Awtry‘s assurances that he is only seeking the information in order to pursue a 

defense in the Illinois Action and not to pursue a defamation claim against his (previously) 

anonymous employee. The chilling effect arises from the negative consequences (whatever they 

might be) to the anonymous speaker that could flow from the disclosure of that individual‘s 

identity, regardless of the stated purposes for which Awtry is seeking the information in the 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 25 of 28
26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Illinois Action. 

It is true that in some circumstances, the potential harm that may arise from disclosure –

and by extension, the chilling effect that may result – may be minimized through use of a 

protective order. Thus, for example, in Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC v. Automattic, Inc., the 

undersigned ordered that the identity of an alleged copyright infringer be disclosed on the 

condition that the information would be used by the plaintiff solely for the purposes of protecting 

its copyright and would not be disclosed to anyone except the parties to the action and their 

counsel. 941 F. Supp. 2d 1145, 1157 (N.D. Cal. 2013). The court reasoned that the anonymous 

speaker who was alleged to have infringed the plaintiff‘s copyright would ―suffer only minimal 

harm‖ with these protections in place and that the plaintiff‘s interest in pursuing its copyright 

claim therefore outweighed the First Amendment concerns. Id. The circumstances here differ 

from those in Signature Management Team, however, because the anonymous speakers who 

posted the Glassdoor Reviews may not parties to the Illinois Action and the Reviews themselves 

are not unlawful on their face. As a result, the facts here implicate more serious First Amendment 

concerns than were at issue in Signature Management Team. Further, it is unclear that a 

protective order limiting the requested information to Awtry or to his counsel would be sufficient 

to avoid the chilling effect discussed above, given that the individual to whom anonymous 

reviewers of Rightsize (especially current employees) would most likely want to prevent 

disclosure is the owner of Rightsize, namely, Awtry. 

Awtry also fails to demonstrate that the information he seeks in his subpoena relates to a 

core defense in the Illinois Action. See 2TheMart.com, 140 F. Supp. 2d at 1096 (―Only when the 

identifying information is needed to advance core claims or defenses can it be sufficiently material 

to compromise First Amendment rights‖). As in 2TheMart.com, where court found that the 

information that was requested related to only one of 27 affirmative defenses and did not go to the 

―heart of the matter,‖ Awtry‘s truth defense relates to only one of many claims being asserted 

against him in the Illinois Action. Further, the conduct upon which many of those other claims are 

based includes the allegedly defamatory statements about Mackie but goes far beyond those 

statements. See, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 121-134 (Lanham Act claim); ¶¶ 150-170 (Illinois Uniform 

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 26 of 28
27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Deceptive Trade Fair Practices Act claim). To the extent that the truth of the allegedly defamatory 

statement is not a defense to these claims (which remain in the Illinois Action despite a pending 

motion to dismiss challenging some of them), the information sought by Awtry in the subpoena 

may have little bearing on the outcome of the case as a practical matter. 

Moreover, it is not clear that the evidence Awtry seeks (assuming the posts were, in fact, 

by Mackie) would be sufficient to show that the allegedly defamatory statement calling Mackie a 

liar was true when it was made. A handful of fake Internet posts may or may not be sufficient to 

show that a person is a ―liar.‖ The fact that the Glassdoor posts occurred almost a year after 

Awtry allegedly called Mackie a liar also appears to diminish the significance of this evidence for 

proving Awtry‘s truth defense. In short, the Court concludes that the information Awtry seeks in 

his subpoena does not relate to a ―core‖ defense in the action. This factor therefore points away 

from ordering disclosure.

The Court also finds that Awtry has not made an adequate showing that the information he 

seeks in the subpoena is necessary to permit him to assert his ―truth‖ defense to the defamation 

claim. As was recognized in 2TheMart.com, it is appropriate that before the Court orders 

enforcement of a subpoena that may compromise the First Amendment rights of anonymous 

speakers, Awtry must demonstrate that he has made reasonable efforts to obtain the information he 

needs from other sources. See 2TheMart.com, 140 F. Supp. 2d at 1097. Awtry has not met this 

burden. To the contrary, Awtry misleadingly states in his brief that he has been unable to depose 

Mackie or propound written discovery relating to the Glassdoor Reviews because of a stay in the 

Illinois Action. See Reply at 8. The May 7, 2015 Minute entry in the Illinois Act, of which the 

Court takes judicial notice, see Frimel Objection Decl., Ex. B, indicates that this statement is 

untrue and that Awtry has been free to pursue discovery on the defamation claim for many 

months. Had he done so, it is possible he might have obtained evidence supporting his defense 

that Mackie is a liar ˗ either by showing that she posted the Glassdoor Reviews or by some other 

means. The Court also rejects Awtry‘s suggestion that he should be excused from attempting to 

use the ordinary mechanisms of discovery because he believes Mackie is a liar and therefore, that 

she (and implicitly, her counsel as well) will not respond truthfully to Awtry‘s discovery. See

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 27 of 28
28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Reply at 8. Awtry‘s apparent failure to conduct any meaningful discovery to learn whether 

Mackie was the author of the Glassdoor Reviews or more generally, to discover evidence that 

might supports his truth defense, weighs in favor of denial of the Motion. 

Weighing the First Amendment implications of ordering disclosure of the identifying 

information sought in the subpoena against Awtry‘s interest in obtaining that information, the 

Court concludes that the former significantly outweigh the latter.7

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Motion is DENIED.

Dated: April 1, 2016

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

 

7 Glassdoor does not assert that the subpoena was issued in bad faith. Nor does the Court question 

Awtry‘s motives in seeking to enforce the subpoena. The fact that Awtry‘s Motion to enforce the 

subpoena was brought in good faith, however, is not a sufficient basis to grant that motion given 

the First Amendment concerns discussed above. See 2TheMart.com, 140 F. Supp. 2d at 1095-96.

Case 3:16-mc-80028-JCS Document 16 Filed 04/01/16 Page 28 of 28