Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cnty.
Decision Date | 10 March 2017 |
Docket Number | H042824 |
Parties | GLASSDOOR, INC., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of Santa Clara County, Respondent; Machine Zone, Inc., Real Party in Interest. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Attorneys for Petitioner Glassdoor, Inc.: Seubert French Frimel & Warner LLP, William J. Frimel, Menlo Park, Rebecca L. Epstein
Attorneys for Real Party in Interest Machine Zone, Inc.: Arnold & Porter LLP, Michael A. Berta, Sean M. SeLegue, San Francisco, Sean Morris, Los Angeles
Petitioner Glassdoor, Inc. (Glassdoor), operates a Web site on which workers can post "reviews" of past and current employers. Real party in interest Machine Zone, Inc. (MZ) is a developer of software products including the online multiplayer game "Game of War: Fire Age." During the pendency of this proceeding it has rebranded itself as "MZ" and has released a product labeled RTplatform, which it describes as "a standalone real-time platform technology that enables the exchange of data between billions of endpoints worldwide virtually simultaneously." Prior to this rebranding, MZ brought suit against a former employee named fictitiously as John Doe. MZ contends that in violation of a nondisclosure agreement signed by all MZ employees, Doe posted a review on Glassdoor's Web site disclosing confidential information concerning the RTPlatform technology. When Glassdoor refused to identify Doe, MZ moved for an order compelling it to do so. The trial court granted the motion. Glassdoor brought this petition for a writ directing the trial court to set aside its order. We have concluded that MZ failed to make a prima facie showing that Doe's statements disclosed confidential information in violation of the nondisclosure agreement. Accordingly, we will grant the requested relief.
According to the complaint, Doe posted the offending review on Glassdoor's Web site on or about June 21, 2015.1 Entitled "A Scandal," the review commences by identifying three "Pro's" of employment at MZ: "Free food, free massages, [and a] spacial [sic ] office." It then sets out four "Con's," as follows:
Under the heading "Advice," the review stated, The review went on to assert that employees were "Very Dissatisfied"; that they, or Doe, " ‘Disapprove’ [of] Gabriel Leydon (CEO)"; that Doe would not recommend MZ to a friend; and that MZ's business outlook was "Getting Worse."
According to MZ, it notified Glassdoor on June 22, 2015, that, in its view, the post disclosed "confidential information regarding Machine Zone's valuation and fundraising, as well as internal, confidential statements made by Machine Zone's CEO and management regarding Machine Zone's confidential and strategic business plans." MZ states that the review was removed from the Web site on June 23.
MZ filed its complaint on July 1, 2015, asserting a single cause of action against Doe for breach of contract. It alleged that Doe breached the nondisclosure agreement by "disclosing to third parties Machine Zone's confidential, non-public information." MZ did not identify the statements in the review supposedly having this effect; nor did it specify the confidential information supposedly disclosed. Instead it broadly alleged that Doe had "provided details concerning undisclosed technology Machine Zone has and is developing, the stage of development of that technology and the scope of Machine Zone's investment therein." MZ further alleged that the post "quoted Machine Zone CEO Gabriel Leydon's confidential internal statements concerning that technology."
On July 2, Machine Zone promulgated a subpoena directing Glassdoor to produce a copy of Doe's review as well as information identifying its author. Glassdoor produced a copy of the review, but otherwise objected to the subpoena on the grounds, among others, that disclosure of the poster's identity would violate his "right to speak anonymously under the First Amendment," and that Machine Zone had "failed to make a prima facie showing that any statement in the review ... is actionable."2
MZ filed a motion to compel. It challenged Glassdoor's standing to assert Doe's First Amendment rights and argued that MZ had "made a sufficient showing to entitle it to disclosure of Defendant's identity." MZ also moved to file the entire review under seal, asserting that the review "contains information that is confidential, non-public and competitively sensitive," and that "[d]isclosure of this kind of confidential information is highly detrimental to Plaintiff and would cause Machine Zone competitive and irreparable business harm by providing competitors with insight into technology development and business plans at Machine Zone."
Glassdoor opposed the motion to compel, insisting that it had standing to object and arguing that MZ had not presented adequate evidence of either a breach of the nondisclosure agreement or of resulting injury. With respect to breach, it contended that MZ had failed to establish that the review disclosed any information that was covered by the nondisclosure agreement. It emphasized that MZ had not specified which statements in the review were supposed to have revealed confidential information, nor the confidential information they supposedly revealed. It also presented evidence that some of the more concrete statements in the review disclosed information that was already publicly available.
The trial court granted the motion to compel. Glassdoor petitioned this court for an extraordinary writ vacating the order and directing the trial court to deny the motion. We issued a stay, followed by an order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.
There is no question that Doe had a right, protected by the First Amendment, to speak anonymously. (See Krinsky v. Doe 6 (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163-1164, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 231 (Krinsky ), citing Talley v. California (1960) 362 U.S. 60, 64, 80 S.Ct. 536, 4 L.Ed.2d 559, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com'n (1995) 514 U.S. 334, 341-342, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 & Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton (2002) 536 U.S. 150, 166, 122 S.Ct. 2080, 153 L.Ed.2d 205.) However MZ contends that Doe's First Amendment rights are personal to him and may not be erected by Glassdoor as a barrier to discovery. This contention raises a true question of jus tertii standing, i.e., the ability "to defeat a claim by asserting the paramount rights of a third person." (Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 980, 989-991, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 426.)
A decade ago, such a contention presented a relatively novel question. Now, however, a substantial preponderance of national authority favors the rule that publishers, including Web site operators, are entitled to assert the First Amendment interests of their anonymous contributors in maintaining anonymity. (See Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 228, fn. 12, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 799, quoting Rancho Publications v. Superior Court (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 274 []; McVicker v. King (W.D. Pa. 2010) 266 F.R.D. 92, 95 []; In re Indiana Newspapers Inc. (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) 963 N.E.2d 534, 549 []; Pilchesky v. Gatelli (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) 12 A.3d 430, 437, fn. 9 [ ]; Trawinski v. Doe (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div., Jun. 3, 2015) 2015 WL 3476553, at p. 5 ; In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to America Online, Inc. (Va. Cir. Ct. 2000) 52 Va. Cir. 26, 2000 WL 1210372 (AOL ), revd. on another ground in America Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co. (2001) 261 Va. 350 ; In re Verizon Internet Services (D.D.C.2003) 257 F.Supp.2d 244, 257-258 (Verizon ), revd. on another ground in Recording Industry Ass'n. of America, Inc. v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc. (D.C.Cir.2003) 351 F.3d 1229, 1239.)
MZ contends that a contrary rule was adopted by this court in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Doe (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 872, 42...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
ZL Techs., Inc. v. Doe
...Two California appellate panels recently have adopted a notice requirement, citing Krinsky . ( Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 623, 634, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 395 ( Glassdoor ); Doe 2 , supra , 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 1311, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 60.) Although the anonymous Internet s......
-
John Doe v. Google, Inc.
..."prohibit[ ] employer restrictions on, or punishment for, speech regarding conditions of employment" ( Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 623, 633, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 395 ). A third protects the rights of any employee to disclose information about a violation of state or fe......
-
Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.
...anonymous postings to an online message board. However, as pointed out in the recent case of Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 623, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 395 ( Glassdoor ), Matrixx is distinguishable.In Matrixx , a pharmaceutical company filed a lawsuit claiming that several ......
-
Shahid Buttar for Cong. Comm. v. Hearst Commc'ns, Inc.
... ... 21-cv-05566-EMC United States District Court", N.D. California April 25, 2022 ... \xC2" ... Assn. v. Superior ... Ct. , 37 Cal.3d 244, 256 (1984) (citing ... 1976)); see also Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Ct. , 9 ... Cal.App. 5th ... ...