Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Support PBS Shop PBS Search PBS

Legal Issues »

Underwritten by John S. and James L. Knight Foundation

Idea Lab is a group blog by innovators who are reinventing community news for the Digital Age.

Read more about Idea Lab »

Each Idea Lab blogger is a winner of the Knight News Challenge grant to reshape community news.

Learn more about the Knight News Challenge »

Judge Quashes Subpoena to Blogger Kathleen Seidel

Knight 2007 News Challenge Winner

A federal magistrate judge in New Hampshire has quashed the subpoena issued to Kathleen Seidel. Seidel publishes the blog Neurodiversity, where she writes about autism issues. In February 2008, she wrote about a lawsuit against various vaccine manufacturers, Sykes v. Bayer, in which the plaintiffs Lisa and Seth Sykes seek to link exposure to mercury to their son's autism. (For more on her statements about the lawsuit, see my previous post: Blogger Kathleen Seidel Fights Subpoena Seeking Information About Vaccine Litigation.)

On March 24, 2008, Clifford Shoemaker, an attorney for the Sykes, served Seidel with a subpoena in connection with the Sykes v. Bayer lawsuit. The subpoena demanded that Seidel appear for a deposition on April 30, 2008, and that she produce a shockingly broad collection of information, including her bank statements, tax returns, communications with religious organizations, and personal correspondence with other bloggers.

On April 21, magistrate judge Muirhead granted Seidel's well argued motion to quash the subpoena. In so doing, the judge also ordered Shoemaker

to show cause within 10 days why he should not be sanctioned under Fed R Civ P 11 - see Fed R Civ P 45(a)(2)(B) which requires that a deposition subpoena be issued from the court in which the deposition is to occur and Fed R Civ P 45 (c)(1) commanding counsel to avoid burdensome subpoenas. A failure to appear will result in notification of Mr Shoemaker's conduct to the Presiding Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Shoemaker will have a difficult time explaining why the subpoena he issued is justified, as it demands the disclosure of documents that appear to have no relevance to the Sykes litigation. Instead, it is rather obvious that the subpoena was intended to coerce a critic of his clients to "shut up."

The use of unjustified legal threats should never be allowed to silence speech. We all lose when we allow that to happen.

(You can follow further developments in the case by going to the entry in the Citizen Media Law Project's Legal Threats Database: Sykes v. Seidel.)

Rate this entry

  • Currently 4.4/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Rating: 4.4/5 (7 votes cast)

Post a Comment

Ground rules for posting comments: No profanity or personal attacks. Please comment on the subject of the blog post itself. If you do not follow these rules, we will remove your post. Keep it civil, folks!

Featured Comment

The translation plug-in sounds like a very good idea: we at times have long lines in Portuguese shops... or you can use it on the bus... ”

Fer Pili
Knight Rewards On-the-Spot Competitors at MIT Meetup

Monthly Archives

Get Idea Lab via E-mail

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner