I have some bad news: There were new filings submitted earlier this week and it looks like the judge's order to block public access applies to all filings going forward other than ones from the judge himself - I couldn't even see a redacted or summarized version. Fortunately the judge still has to rule on any filings Rumer and Jamie make so we can still have a little fun here.
The judge has issued an order denying a second motion to dismiss in response to Rumer's amended complaint (both are attached below). It appears that Miller filed a defense in a withheld document citing CDA 230 (which holds a site owner is not liable for third-party comments - this law is the entire reason any social media or message boards can exist, especially small and controversial ones like us). The judge rejecting this motion does not mean there is no plausible CDA230 defense, only that the idea that CDA230 does not apply to Miller given his specific circumstances is plausible. For those who are not attorneys rulings on motions to dismiss are plaintiff friendly by design and are only ruled in the defendant's favor if the plaintiff has no claim even if every plausible claim in his/her complaint is assumed to be true.
Now let's take a look at
this post from the "Rumers Anonymous" Blog. Theatrics aside the post claims that the person who registered the blog was identified via some sort of user lookup and got subpoenaed but claims to have absolute immunity under 230, which also seems to be what Jamie claimed in his motion to dismiss. What this tells me is that Jamie Miller was not some innocent ex-Rumer patient who got extremely unlucky, he is the registrar for Rumers Anonymous. If he also posted on there, or did reviews of the posts, then he is also a user of the site and can be sued as an ordinary user, not the host. What I do not know is how Rumer plans to prove he did that since now she needs proof of a connection between Miller and the site's posters and she has not been able to identify the posters at all.
EDIT: Three things I forgot.
First, Miller's motion to appoint counsel was denied. The judge did not give an explanation and the request to appoint counsel is not publicly available forcing him to proceed as a self represented (
pro se) defendant seems fundamentally unfair to me.
Second, presumption of innocence means Rumer
should have to prove that Miller is more than just a "provider" of an internet hosting service to win her claim. That being said, Miller is a
pro se defendant so he will have trouble winning that argument if Rumer's attorneys are even moderately competent.
Third, this means my theory that Rumer using her own records to narrow down the possible authors was probably incorrect - getting the information from Blogspot explains everything and is entirely fair game despite her HIPAA responsibilities.
@AnOminous could you correct me if I am wrong here and/or call Kathy Rumer a fucking cunt?
