Is Doe v. Ciolli Now... Doe v. pauliewalnuts?
There's news to report in the lawsuit filed by two female Yale Law School students over various allegedly defamatory and threatening comments posted about them on AutoAdmit.com. The amended complaint, which was delayed in arriving, has finally been filed. You can check it out here.
For some thoughts on the amended complaint by Professor Dave Hoffman, who has established himself as the expert on all things AutoAdmit-related, see here. As Hoffman notes, the most significant change is the dropping of Anthony Ciolli as a defendant.
In response to this news, Ciolli issued this statement:
I am pleased to see that the Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed me from this suit. Including me in the suit in the first place was legally unsupportable. I never posted a single defamatory or invasive statement. I told the plaintiffs that from the start, and I provided them with a sworn declaration to that effect.Had I remained as a defendant, the only theory could have been rooted in a desire to overturn Section 230. As I was merely an employee of AutoAdmit, leaving me in the suit would have been akin to suing a Google employee for anything found on a web page hosted by that company - even if Google was not responsible for the content. The weakness of that theory was apparent to me from the beginning, as were the ramifications of its unlikely success — an explosion of liability for every internet service provider in America.
You can read the whole thing over at Professor Marc Randazza's blog, The Legal Satyricon. Congratulations to Ciolli and to Professor Randazza, who was representing him, on the good news.
Former Penn Law Student Dropped from Autoadmit Lawsuit [Concurring Opinions]
Anthony Ciolli Dropped from Auto Admit Lawsuit [The Legal Satyricon]
Doe v. pauliewalnuts et al. [Amended Complaint (PDF)]
Earlier: What the Heck Is Going on with Doe v. Ciolli?
Has AutoAdmit Been Pwn3d?














Comments
First
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 02:13 PM
first
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 02:13 PM
Sorry anonymous. I won.
-Anonymous
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 02:16 PM
Ciolli is a tool. The little pissant should just be grateful that he won't have to pony up legal fees because the students have opted not to go after him even if only just for sucking so hard. An endeavor in which I would have fully supported them.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 02:17 PM
That he is offering his expert legal opinion in his statement takes a lot of nerve. He should thank his lucky stars and shut up for once.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 02:19 PM
I like the headline of this post. Good work Lat.
Seriously, though, can/does a dismissed defendant get his name removed from the case (i.e. not just as a defendant)?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 02:20 PM
Sixth!
Posted by: Sixth | November 9, 2007 02:21 PM
omg..i went to high school w/ Ciolli...he has always been disturbing and weird...
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 02:22 PM
he still looks like a d-bag.
Posted by: Guy At Your High School | November 9, 2007 02:28 PM
This whole lawsuit started because these two students did not get an offer during their biglaw interviews, and believed it was due to the defamatory things said about them on Autoadmit.
This should show law schools how important career placement is to students.
Loyola’s Dean, Mr. “We don’t promise our students jobs” (the statement he made to the WSJ journal) needs to change his tune.
At Loyola, the administration is set up to help the top 10% get biglaw jobs, and to do nothing, absolutely nothing, for the rest of us. The rest of us are shown the job board, which contains only $15/hour jobs, which aren’t even enough to pay our student loans.
I only wish I had probono help, with which to sue the people whose deceptive marketing and exorbitant tuitions harmed my life.
Posted by: Loyola 2L | November 9, 2007 02:29 PM
If the Does had it their way, 2:22, 2:19, 2:17 would all be subject to being outed.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 02:29 PM
Guys in my high school always got dropped from lawsuits. Its no big deal
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 02:30 PM
guys at your high school were disturbing and weird all the time, it was no big deal.
Posted by: anon | November 9, 2007 02:31 PM
Autoadmit gets a lot more postings from users than ATL and no one could possible police all of them.
even if he selectively moderated the forum in certain instances, that doesn't mean he has the obligation to do so.
This is a victory for internet freedom.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 02:31 PM
I would like to hate-fuck autoadmit. Can a person "fuck" a website? Only time and my cyber-surgeons can tell.
Posted by: strange hotness | November 9, 2007 02:33 PM
"This is a victory for internet freedom." @ 2:31
I think 30-and-growing-in-ranks psuedononymous defendants would disagree.
It seems Ciolli had suffered quite a bit. I'm pleased to see that most bloggers, etc. seem to be letting him get his side out.
Posted by: Anon | November 9, 2007 02:36 PM
I hope Christ's love can helped these perturbed defendants.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 02:40 PM
I apparently have a very definition of "Freedom" than some of you. I wasn't aware it included the right to defame persons and post graphic rape fantasies about them... or ask people to take pics of them at the Gym.
My bad.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 02:40 PM
He already lost his biglaw job and likely has little prospect for anything remotely law-related, so I think the damage is done. It's hard to feel bad for him; being openly associated with a hate-mongering website like autoadmit was career suicide. The only question was when it was going to bite him in the ass and how hard.
Posted by: Anon | November 9, 2007 02:41 PM
2:40 --- ha ha ha ha
Posted by: Anon | November 9, 2007 02:45 PM
I agree 2:41. That was a very poor decision on Ciolli's part.
I hope Lat interviews him again.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 02:45 PM
xoxo (autoadmit) has been a very useful tool for me as a lawschool student. although you have to filter through the various sexist, racist and hateful posts on the site, the fact is, a lot of law school students post there and share very useful information. You just have to be smart about who you listen to.
I was oblivious to the whole T14 contest when it happened, but noticed the various threads made against the plaintiffs - and while they were disturbing and offensive, I had no idea how far some of these guys went. The fact that someone emailed the Yale faculty and one of the women's employers and said incredibly offensive things about them is completely beyond belief. These are some twisted people committing some heinous acts. I find it hard to rally around 1st amendment rights in situations like this - upholding those rights here comes at a significant cost.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 02:47 PM
I find the entire caption of the case hilarious. If I were writing a legal casebook I would include it just so I could include the caption. My favorite is that one of the posters uses the name "Prof. Brian Leiter" after xoxo's most prominent critic, so now that is one of the named defendants.
Posted by: Anon | November 9, 2007 02:50 PM
Have a pretty light workload right now, so I just read the complaint for the first time. Holy crap. This is some sick stuff. I certainly hope none of these people are at my firm.
Someone more web-savvy than me - are the plaintiff's going to be able to figure out who these people are?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 02:52 PM
It seems like the original complaint was written by Michael Fertik and possibly the plaintiffs. The new version removed the claims about XO affecting job prospects and the new complaint stands a chance of prolonging the case. There is still, in my opinion, a huge problem for the Plaintiffs -- they dont have an IP address for the letter to the Yale Law faculty and they dont have an IP address for the email they say someone sent to the one girl's employer. On top of that, Autoadmit claims it doesnt collect IPs, thus making a lot of the comments unidentifiable. THey're left digging around the periphery--stuff like the "beebee890" video and the hidebehind site where the t14 pictures were hosted.
Someone also correct me if I'm wrong, but the copyright claim can't proceed unless there was takedown notice right? ANd the pictures have been down, it seems, since March 1st. It seems the pictures were taken down after some complaints were received. So I'm not sure how a copyright claim works here. I can see the other claims as colorable, but the copyright one seems weak.
Thoughts?
Posted by: Blogger | November 9, 2007 03:14 PM
Has it ever been established if Autoadmit kept records of IPs or not?
If there are no IP records, then this whole lawsuit is pissing into the wind.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 03:14 PM
It seems like the original complaint was written by Michael Fertik and possibly the plaintiffs. The new version removed the claims about XO affecting job prospects and the new complaint stands a chance of prolonging the case. There is still, in my opinion, a huge problem for the Plaintiffs -- they dont have an IP address for the letter to the Yale Law faculty and they dont have an IP address for the email they say someone sent to the one girl's employer. On top of that, Autoadmit claims it doesnt collect IPs, thus making a lot of the comments unidentifiable. THey're left digging around the periphery--stuff like the "beebee890" video and the hidebehind site where the t14 pictures were hosted.
Someone also correct me if I'm wrong, but the copyright claim can't proceed unless there was takedown notice right? ANd the pictures have been down, it seems, since March 1st. It seems the pictures were taken down after some complaints were received. So I'm not sure how a copyright claim works here. I can see the other claims as colorable, but the copyright one seems weak.
Thoughts?
Posted by: Blogger | November 9, 2007 03:15 PM
2:29 -- huh? If the plaintiffs had their way, only people making defamatory and harmful statements would be outed. Calling someone a "tool" or "disturbing and weird" hardly qualifies -- they're opinions, which, last I checked, we have a right to hold (at least, in the America I'm familiar with).
Anyway, what do I care if everyone knows I think he's a tool? I'd gladly repeat it to someone in real life if the loser came up in one of our conversations. What, you think I'm worried my firm will know I read Above The Law? Everyone reads ATL. People here email partners links to ATL thanks to Lat's awesome bonus and raise announcements. So... your comment gets a big fat *shrug*.
Posted by: 2:17 | November 9, 2007 03:40 PM
Did you steal this post title from a post on BiglawBoard.com lat?
at least have the decency to link to it if you did
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 03:41 PM
Ciolli could have used four years in college to learn how not to sound like a douche. http://cornellsun.com/node/8789
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 03:50 PM
Why the fuck did this clowndick issue this rambling statement?? I mean, "...to altruistically do right", etc.??
Further proof that PENN is for non-prestigious morons.
Posted by: nyu dumbass | November 9, 2007 03:56 PM
"Further proof that PENN is for non-prestigious morons."
HEY-YO!!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 04:12 PM
3:50 - how would he learn that at Cornell?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 04:38 PM
"Further proof that PENN is for non-prestigious morons."
Well, any school that has kept Joe Paterno on staff for the last 120 years has questionable judgment. The Big Ten is not known for its preftige.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 04:42 PM
pwn3d.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 04:43 PM
442: Wrong school, smart ass.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 04:57 PM
I can understand why they wouldn't be able to get the IP addresses if the website didn't keep them, but why wouldn't they be able to get the IP addresses on the emails? IP addresses are usually in email headers. Once you have that, it's just a matter of subpoenaing the ISPs, although ISPs usually only keep log files of subscriber activity for up to a few months, I think.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 05:03 PM
@3:40:
I never said that these comments were going to win a libel suit; I said that they are enough to get you *outed*.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 05:20 PM
Hey Anthony Ciolli, don't give us any of that crap about you not being responsible.
You RAN Autoadmit. You KNEW about these blatantly offensive, deflammatory postings. And you didn't DO JACK about removing them.
Anthony Ciolli is a low-life, unethical piece of scum. It sickens me that he thinks he can get away with this crap because of his prestige and intellect.
It also sickens me that people like him simply because they are impressed with his intellect. Anthony Ciolli is a lowlife and I hope that his legal career is forever ruined. He should've shut down that disgusting Autoadmit website.
Hey Anthony, I'm laughing at the fact that you pissed away your legal career. I only wish you the worst.
Posted by: XOXOHTH elitist | November 9, 2007 06:34 PM
@ 5:20
And MY point was that you have to have a basis, e.g., libel, for invading a user's privacy. There is no basis to "out" me, so I'm not worried (though, as mentioned earlier, I wouldn't be worried anyway).
Posted by: 3:40 | November 10, 2007 01:35 AM
@6:34 - he didn't run the website, he did end up removing the posts, and you're a moron.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 10, 2007 09:44 PM
@ 9;44 and 3:40, if it was as insignificant a nonissue as you claim it is, you wouldn't be signing your messages as 'Anonymous.'
Posted by: Anonymous | November 10, 2007 09:47 PM
i feel sorry for him. although of course his involvement with the site shows immaturity (somewhat explained by that link above), he didn't write the offensive threads, and he did work to get the t14 contest webpage taken down.
at this point i feel like he's just a scapegoat for the board owner and the posters, many of whom will never be identified.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 11, 2007 12:06 AM
4:57 - everyone knows that Penn is Big 10 school known more for its football than academics, check your facts.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 11, 2007 06:40 PM
LOL@"Anthony Ciolli . . . thinks he can get away with this crap because of his prestige and intellect."
Is that you Anthony Ciolli?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 12, 2007 09:33 AM
I really, really wish the politically correct crowd would drown themselves.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 12, 2007 11:27 AM
I really, really wish the politically correct crowd would drown themselves.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 12, 2007 11:27 AM
__________________________________
Aww, is that you pauliewalnuts?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 12, 2007 05:58 PM