Sorry, Rabbi, Your Second Attempt To Uncover Anonymous Critics Rejected Too
from the what-does-the-torah-say-about-harassing-your-critics? dept
As Paul Levy from Public Citizen notes in his blog post (linked above), his filing had provided a number of "procedural" reasons to reject the subpoena, but NY Supreme Court Justice Victor Alfieri chose the broadest one, saying that the revealing of the anonymous speakers needs to "go to the heart of the case." Since the commentary by these bloggers really only impacted the amount of damages, but wasn't central to the key legal questions in the case, the court rejected the attempt to identify the bloggers.
Plaintiff contends that the information sought is relevant to his mitigation of damages defense. However, mere relevance is not sufficient. Rather, the information sought must "go to the heart of the matter," i.e., that the information is crucial to the party's case.Since that was not true in this case, the anonymity remains reasonably protected... and Tendler has to deal with another bit of news about the original accusations.