From protecting proprietary ideas and concepts, developing strategic Non-Disclosure Agreements (“NDAs”), registering trademarks and copyrights to drafting Mutual NDAs, privacy policies, terms of use, employment and independent contractor agreements, licensing agreements, and more, the attorneys at Mudd Law Offices can provide the legal services the startup culture (small business owners, CEOs, executives, startup leadership, entrepreneurs) seeks with a full suite of legal services to protect their interests and facilitate their growth.

In 2009, the O’Briens submitted a bid for a foreclosed property in a community association.  The Plaintiff also submitted a bid on the property.  The bank accepted the O’Briens’ bid.  Subsequently, the O’Briens and the bank signed a contract for the purchase of the foreclosed property.  However, the contract was subject to the community association’s right of first refusal.  This condition precedent represented the only term that stood between the O’Briens and ownership of the property.

As it turns out, the Plaintiff also happened to be the President of the Board for the community association.  He informed the bank that the association would not waive the right of first refusal.  On August 12, 2009, the Association’s Board held a public hearing.  At the hearing, the Plaintiff brought forth the idea of assigning the right of first refusal to the highest bidder.  Because not enough board members were present on the 12th of August, the Board recessed until the 18th of August.

Between the meetings, the O’Briens sent a letter to the community members in an effort to persuade them to, in turn, persuade their Board to waive the right of first refusal such that they could purchase the property.  In the letter, the Plaintiffs complained of the Plaintiff.

The Board voted to assign the right of first refusal to the highest bidder in a 4-2 vote.

As it turns out, the Plaintiff had submitted his bid on behalf of his clients.  At the August 18, 2009, hearing, the clients for whom the Plaintiff submitted the bid submitted a bid for the right of first refusal.  Being the only bid, the right of first refusal was assigned to the Plaintiff’s clients.

Nearly a year later, the Plaintiff sued the O’Briens for five statements contained in the letter they wrote in 2009 advocating their position.

In her ruling, Judge French held that only two of the five statements could possibly be defamatory.  She also held that all of the statements constituted one or more of truth, opinion, or a statement capable of innocent construction.  Beyond this, Judge French held that the O’Briens had made the statements subject to a qualified privilege because both the O’Briens, who authored the letter, and the Association members, to whom the letter was sent, had interests in the content and subject of the letter.

Further, Judge French held that the O’Briens had not abused their privilege.

Based on the foregoing, Judge French entered judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff.

Regardless of the litigation method (pre-suit discovery or a traditional lawsuit), courts have struggled for several years to determine the proper standard for determining when to order disclosure of an anonymous individual’s identity.  In doing so, the courts have sought to balance, on the one hand, an individual’s right to be free from defamation (which is not protected by the First Amendment) and/or invasions of privacy (or other torts, for that matter) and, on the other hand, an individual’s First Amendment right to anonymous speech.

While some jurisdictions have adopted a motion for summary judgment standard (which Mudd Law advocates), two Illinois Appellate courts adopted a motion to dismiss standard.  Most recently, in Stone v. Paddock Publications (an appeal in which Mudd Law co-represented an anonymous individual), the First Appellate Court of the Illinois Appellate Court adopted a motion to dismiss standard.  Still, even under the Stone standard, a petitioner/plaintiff must demonstrate that it would survive a motion to dismiss by pleading all elements for a cognizable cause of action.

In the case ruled upon today in the Circuit Court of Cook County, the court employed the Stone standard and held that the statements in the six particular tweets did not amount to defamation per se.  The Court granted our Motion and ordered Twitter to refrain from disclosing any information about our client until further order of the Court.

Mudd Law Offices first became acquainted with Frederick Phillips in 2005 and have had the pleasure of representing him ever since.  During that time, we helped Frederick Phillips establish direct control over the production, sale and distribution of his sought-after artwork.  We look forward to many more years representing Frederick Phillips.

Mudd Law Offices is pleased to sell on behalf of Frederick Phillips the wonderful Quintessence: The Art of Frederick Phillips, with all proceeds going directly to Frederick Phillips.