Court Opinion

ID: 9721114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:48:44.557166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:13.652932
License: Public Domain

RICHARD H. EDELMAN, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur with the majority opinion that disclosure of the identity of the individuals who were involved in placing the allegedly defamatory ad does not violate First Amendment rights. However, contrary to the majority opinion, I do not believe that relator made a prima facie showing that disclosure of COC membership information will burden First Amendment rights. In particular, as in Buckley,1 and as distinguished from the facts of Bay Area Citizens,'2 relator has offered no factual, non-speculative evidence of a reasonable probability of reprisal (other than that those who were involved in placing the ad will be made parties to the lawsuit). Therefore, relator has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion by the trial court and is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Nevertheless, respondent’s brief states clearly that disclosure of COC membership information, as such, is no longer sought by Thomas and Burton:
This case [N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama] is not applicable to the case at bar where the identity of members will not be asked for.... Here, respondents merely want to know the identity of those persons who were involved in fabricating and publishing defamatory statements about them so they can be made parties prior to the running of the statute of limitations.... Here, Thomas and Burton need to know only the identity of those persons, be they members or not, who contributed to the defamatory publications .... The government is not attempting to compel the identity of members of an organization, individuals are trying to find out who defamed them.
[T]he identities of the members of the [COC] will not be sought.... This is all Thomas and Burton seek, the identity of the persons who participated in the conduct complained of. Whether or not they were members of the [COC] doesn’t matter, and won’t be inquired about.
Because these statements effectively abandon any request for membership information, as such, there is no longer any live controversy concerning disclosure of that information, and the issue concerning it is now moot. Thus, rather than include an advisory and, I believe, questionable, analysis of that issue, I would simply hold that no issue remains as to disclosure of the membership information and advise the trial court that the portion of the order compelling compliance with document re*263quest number four should be withdrawn accordingly.

. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976).

. See In re Bay Area Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, 982 S.W.2d 371, 376-78 (Tex. 1998).