Be Careful What You Post

A reader brought to my attention today a court Decision and Order in the Document Security Systems, Inc., et al. v. Adler Technologies, Inc., et al. case (U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, Case 03-CV-6044).  Judge Michael A. Telesca ruled on February 29, 2008 granting "defendants’ cross-motion to amend to include defendants’ proposed defamation counterclaim ... and the addition of proposed counterclaim defendant, Caton."  The defamation counterclaim is based on comments Mr. Caton posted on my December 2006 blog post entitled, "Document Security Systems Not Sapped By Patent Dispute," that was related to this case.

The Decision and Order reads, in part:

In defendants’ proposed Eighteenth Counterclaim, defendants Adler, Arcis, McTaggart and Wu seek to add a counterclaim against both plaintiff and proposed additional counterclaim defendant Michael Caton (Plaintiff’s Vice President of Implementation) (“Caton”), for defamation arising out of alleged statements made by Caton on December 29, 2006. Defendants contend that this counterclaim is supplemental pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) and 13(e) because the events occurred since the counterclaims were originally plead against plaintiff. According to defendants, on December 29, 2006, Caton posted false statements on an internet web log entitled, “Philip Brook Patent Infringement Updates.”3 Defendants claim the statements were intended to harm the character of Adler and its owners, McTaggart and Wu and imply that they misappropriated technology, which are not true and are defamatory.

3 the following statements “As for Adlertech maybe people should just look at what the owners of this company have there [sic] experience in up to the point that they meet the Wickers and how all of a sudden they know all there is to know about printing and took people in the field to learn many many years and seem to just be puttig [sic] out products which match or are similar to DSSI. ALL I will say is the product which they are selling (ODT) patented technology which I help[sic] develop and was suppose[sic] to be compensated[sic] for and never was is what they are sell [sic]. If I am correct if all the inventors are not named on a patent then the patent can be ruled invalid and I have a very good case if that is to be pushed. I think the Post above did not research very well before they posted.” See Exhibit C to Paul Leclair’s Declaration, ¶ 102, p. 84

The proposed new counterclaim on behalf of Adler, McTaggart, Arcis and Wu against Caton, which relate to defamation concern the publication of alleged defamatory materials by Caton on December 29, 2006. ... although defendants’ defamation amendment may result in a delay, it will not unduly prejudice plaintiff. Indeed, plaintiff has not set forth the exact prejudice it will suffer if this defamation counterclaim is allowed by the Court. Since the purpose of Rule 15 is to encourage disposition of litigation on the merits, defendants’ proposed defamation counterclaim is permitted and the proposed counterclaim defendant, Caton is added.

See the complete Decision and Order here [Download adler_v_dmc.2.29.08.pdf].  I certainly do not want to discourage comments on this blog, but please think through what you have written before you click "POST."  Thanks to the reader who alerted me to the Decision and Order.