<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The MTTLR Blog &#187; John Doe</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mttlrblog.org/tag/john-doe/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mttlrblog.org</link>
	<description>Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:42:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Are Subpoena Standards Substantive, Procedural, or Constitutional Law?</title>
		<link>http://www.mttlrblog.org/2009/03/22/are-subpoena-standards-substantive-procedural-or-constitutional-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mttlrblog.org/2009/03/22/are-subpoena-standards-substantive-procedural-or-constitutional-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:37:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jason C. Miller</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal/Tech News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quick Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Erie doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Doe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mttlrblog.org/?p=157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As courts [PDF] have established standards for subpoenas to ISPs in online defamation lawsuits, they have raised new questions.
Professor Wasserman has raised the question whether these standards are a part of state substantive defamation law that federal courts would apply in diversity actions under Erie or are instead mere procedural rules.  My article from [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As <a href="http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/63a08.pdf">courts</a> [PDF] have established standards for subpoenas to ISPs in online defamation lawsuits, they have raised new questions.</p>
<p>Professor Wasserman has <a href="http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2009/03/erie-meets-the-first-amendment.html">raised the question</a> whether these standards are a part of state substantive defamation law that federal courts would apply in diversity actions under <em>Erie</em> or are instead mere procedural rules.  My <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1365326_code1142010.pdf?abstractid=1365326&amp;mirid=1">article</a> from <a href="http://grove.ufl.edu/~techlaw/about.html">JTLP</a>, <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1365326">Who&#8217;s Exposing John Doe? Distinguishing Between Public and Private Figure Plaintiffs in Subpoenas</a>, argues that the constitutional distinction between public and private figures in defamation law should apply to certain procedural issues also.  My proposal would appear to be a substantive distinction that federal courts would apply under <em>Erie</em>.  The <a href="http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/63a08.pdf">court opinions</a> [PDF] fashioning standards also discuss substantive and constitutional issues in developing the procedural rules.</p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mttlrblog.org/2009/03/22/are-subpoena-standards-substantive-procedural-or-constitutional-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
