UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division BRENNAN M. GILMORE, Plaintiff, v. ALEXANDER (“ALEX”) E. JONES, INFOWARS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, FREE SPEECH SYSTEMS, LLC, a Case No. 18-00017 Texas limited liability company, LEE STRANAHAN, LEE ANN MCADOO a/k/a LEE ANN FLEISSNER, SCOTT CREIGHTON, JAMES (“JIM”) HOFT, ALLEN B. WEST, and DERRICK WILBURN, Defendants. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF OF SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF Professors Christine Bartholomew, Danielle Citron, Brooke Coleman, Scott Dodson, Howard Erichson, Helen Hershkoff, Lee Kovarsky, Sarah Ludington, Philip Pucillo, Alexander Reinert, Joan Shaughnessy, Benjamin Spencer, Adam Steinman, and Suja Thomas (“Scholars” or “Amici”) respectfully move for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to the Defendants’ motions to dismiss. In support of their motion, Amici state as follows: 1. This case raises the question of whether this Court has personal jurisdiction over non-resident Defendants who allegedly defamed Plaintiff via Internet-based media, including YouTube, arising out of his connection with the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally and protest. 1 2358409 v1 Case 3:18-cv-00017-NKM-JCH Document 72 Filed 06/19/18 Page 1 of 3 Pageid#: 1268 2. Amici are 14 professors of law with expertise in the areas of civil procedure and jurisdiction and who have an interest in the sound and stable development of personal jurisdiction doctrine. Amici submit their brief to explain how settled Supreme Court personal jurisdiction law – as stated in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), and Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) – applies to this case, and to caution the Court against adopting an anomalous view of how personal jurisdiction doctrine applies in this case. 3. While no Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governs amicus briefs submitted in the district court, a federal district court has the inherent authority to authorize participation by amicus curiae to assist the court in its proceedings. United States v. Louisiana, 751 F.Supp. 608, 620 (E.D. La. 1990); United States v. Michigan, 116 F.R.D. 655, 660 (W.D. Mich. 1987). The decision to invite or accept participation by an amicus is committed to the sound discretion of the court. Alexander v. Hall, 64 F.R.D. 152, 155 (D.S.C. 1974). 4. This Court has previously authorized the filing of amicus briefs in cases raising important constitutional questions. See Draego v. City of Charlottesville, Case No. 16-57 (NKM), Dkt. 21 (W.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2016) (granting motion for leave of Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression to file a brief as amicus curiae); Rothamel v. Fluvanna Cty., Va., 810 F. Supp. 2d 771, 776 (W.D. Va. 2011) (citing amicus brief filed by Commonwealth of Virginia). Given the importance of the constitutional questions raised and the consequences an opinion in this case may have on other, similar cases, Amici respectfully submit that their 12-page amicus brief, attached as Exhibit A, will aid the Court in its analysis of the personal jurisdiction issues. Amici submit that application of Supreme Court personal jurisdiction doctrine to the facts alleged in this case yields the conclusion that Defendants are properly subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court, that Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are built on certain premises 2 2358409 v1 Case 3:18-cv-00017-NKM-JCH Document 72 Filed 06/19/18 Page 2 of 3 Pageid#: 1269 that cannot be reconciled with controlling Supreme Court doctrine, and that concise examination of these arguments by law professors focused on the study, teaching, and analysis of civil procedure and jurisdiction will aid the Court. CONCLUSION Amici respectfully request that this Court grant them leave to file the amicus brief attached hereto as Exhibit A, and to direct the Clerk to docket the amicus brief accordingly. Respectfully submitted, / s / Elizabeth A. Aniskevich Elizabeth A. Aniskevich E.D. Va. Bar No. 81809 Adam H. Farra COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. / Fifth Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. (202) 408-4692 Tel. (202) 408-3640 [email protected] [email protected] Michael B. Eisenkraft COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street / Fourteenth Floor New York, New York 10005 Tel. (212) 220-2925 [email protected] Counsel to Amici Curiae 3 2358409 v1 Case 3:18-cv-00017-NKM-JCH Document 72 Filed 06/19/18 Page 3 of 3 Pageid#: 1270 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division BRENNAN M. GILMORE, Plaintiff, v. ALEXANDER (“ALEX”) E. JONES, INFOWARS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, FREE SPEECH SYSTEMS, LLC, a Case No. 18-00017 Texas limited liability company, LEE STRANAHAN, LEE ANN MCADOO a/k/a LEE ANN FLEISSNER, SCOTT CREIGHTON, JAMES (“JIM”) HOFT, ALLEN B. WEST, and DERRICK WILBURN, Defendants. AMICUS BRIEF OF SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF 2357627 v7 Case 3:18-cv-00017-NKM-JCH Document 72-1 Filed 06/19/18 Page 1 of 19 Pageid#: 1271 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3 I. SETTLED SUPREME COURT DOCTRINE ESTABLISHES THAT DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT RENDERS THEM SUBJECT TO THE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT. ................................................ 3 II. DEFENDANTS’ READING OF FOURTH CIRCUIT CASE LAW IS INCORRECT, EXTREME, AND CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY. ........................................................................................................ 7 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 12 i 2357627 v7 Case 3:18-cv-00017-NKM-JCH Document 72-1 Filed 06/19/18 Page 2 of 19 Pageid#: 1272 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Bochan v. La Fontaine, 68 F. Supp. 2d 692 (E.D. Va. 1999) ..........................................................................................9 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) .......................................................................................................1, 3, 5 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) ...................................................................................................................2 Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) ......................................................................................................... passim Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Centers, Inc., 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................................4 CFA Inst. v. Inst. of Chartered Fin. Analysts of India, 551 F.3d 285 (4th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................3 First Am. First, Inc. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Bank Women, 802 F.2d 1511 (4th Cir. 1986) ...................................................................................................8 Gubarev v. Buzzfeed, Inc., 253 F. Supp. 3d 1149 (S.D. Fla. 2017) ....................................................................................11 Hawbecker v. Hall, 88 F. Supp. 3d 723 (W.D. Tex. 2015) ......................................................................................10 International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) ...................................................................................................................1 Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC, 766 F. Supp. 2d 828 (E.D. Ky. 2011) ........................................................................................9 Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, 465 U.S. 770 (1984) .........................................................................................................5, 7, 11 Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................10 Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) ..................................................................................................... passim World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) ...................................................................................................................4 ii 2357627 v7 Case 3:18-cv-00017-NKM-JCH Document 72-1 Filed 06/19/18 Page 3 of 19 Pageid#: 1273 Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002) .........................................................................................3, 7, 8, 9 OTHER AUTHORITIES C. Douglas Floyd & Shima Baradaran-Robison, Toward A Unified Test of Personal Jurisdiction in an Era of Widely Diffused Wrongs: The Relevance of Purpose and Effects, 81 IND. L.J. 601, 630–31 (2006) ..............................................................4 “Shirley Jones, still going strong,” The Los Angeles Times, May 13, 2009, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/13/entertainment/et- classichollywood13 (date accessed: June 10, 2018) ................................................................11