Marlboro Players pursues online defamation case

Attorney representing theater group expects to be in court April 18

BY REBECCA MORTON Staff Writer

MARLBORO- It is a case of who done it in a lawsuit filed by the Marlboro Players against defendants all listed as John Doe that stems from comments that were posted on an online Internet forum.

The Marlboro Players is a community theater group.

Attorney Stuart Moskovitz, Freehold Township, is representing the Marlboro Players in the civil case. He was hired by a vote of the theater company’s board members.

The complaint is against 11 defendants, all listed as John Doe, as a result of messages that were posted on the Internet site NJ.com Theatre forum. The anonymous individuals used a variety of screen names and posted defamatory statements against the organization and individuals by name, according to the complaint.

The complaint states that the defamatory statements were intentionally made with the purpose of demeaning and humiliating the Marlboro Players, its participants, officers and former officers. The complaint alleges that the reputation of the theater company has been damaged and has caused a negative impact on recruiting, production and revenue for the group.

TheMarlboro Players is seeking actual damages, an amount to be determined through a trial; and $100,000 in punitive damages.

Moskovitz explained how a lawsuit can be brought against anonymous individuals. First, he said, he had to subpoena the information provided at the time of signup on NJ.com for each of 11 individuals who posted messages online. He said five people hired an attorney who filed a motion to prevent NJ.com from providing their information to the plaintiff.

Attorney Matthew Koster, of New York City, said he is representing five of the potential John Does listed in the Marlboro Players’ complaint.

Koster points out in supplemental papers to the court that the comments provided as evidence in the complaint cannot be considered defamatory. He notes four blurbs, ranging from one word to a little more than a dozen words, made by an anonymous author using one screen name listed in the complaint. These partial statements are not sufficient to allege defamation, the attorney said.

The complaint only cites comments by two of the screen names, stating that the others will be provided during the discovery phase. Koster said there is clear case law which states that the complaint should include the postings of those names as well.

It is also noted in the complaint filed by Moskovitz on behalf of the Marlboro Players that some messages that were posted in the Theater forum were so defamatory in nature that they had been deleted from the Web site, but it states that the exact dates and quotations will be obtained during discovery.

Koster said NJ.com has stated that it does not keep a record of deleted posts, which means they no longer exist.

The two sides are scheduled to meet in court onApril 18 to determine whether the motion to quash the subpoena will be granted. If the judge rules in favor of the Marlboro Players, then the operators of the NJ.comWeb site will have to turn over the information provided by people at the time of sign-up to Moskovitz (unless they appeal the decision).

To set up an NJ.com account, the only real requirement is a valid e-mail address. Information pertaining to the person’s gender, year of birth and hometown ZIP code are also requested.

Posters are required to accept a user agreement that states, “You agree not to use any obscene, indecent, or offensive language or to provide to or post on or through the Web site any graphics, text, photographs, images, video, audio or other material that is defamatory, abusive, bullying, harassing, racist, hateful, or violent. You agree to refrain fromethnic slurs, religious intolerance, homophobia, and personal attacks when using theWeb site.”

Not all of the members of the Marlboro Players are in favor of the legal action that has been taken in their name. Neil Goldstein, a former board member of the theater company, called the lawsuit ridiculous. Goldstein said he was made aware of the lawsuit upon receiving an email sent out to all members of the Marlboro Players.

According to the group’s bylaws, in order to be a member of the group an individualmust pay annual dues.Membership also entitles each individual over the age of 18 to one vote.

“The money being spent to bring this lawsuit against these people is ridiculous,” Goldstein said, adding that the group’s money should go toward the presentation of shows.

Goldstein said he is disappointed that money the members have worked so hard to raise is being spent without their authorization. The 10-year member of the group believes that the incomplete board of directors should have spoken with the general membership about the issue.

The Marlboro Players has a sevenmember board, although currently there are only five members in positions. Goldstein said there is currently no president or vice president on the board.

There is talk of a letter being passed around by the general membership of the Marlboro Players in opposition to the lawsuit. Since each member is entitled to a vote, Goldstein said the members outweigh the current board.