PHILADELPHIA – A florist who brought a defamation suit in response to poor reviews of his business and business practices which were posted on Facebook, now seeks to serve the social media platform with a third-party subpoena as a part of his case.
Blossoms & Blooms, Inc. (doing business as “Domenic Graziano Flowers & Gifts”) and Domenic Graziano first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 21 versus Jane Doe.
“On or about Dec. 14, 2021, defendant left a false and defamatory comment on the Domenic Graziano Flowers business profile page on Facebook.com, defaming both Graziano Flowers and Graziano himself. After Graziano Flowers removed the defamatory comment from their Facebook.com profile page, on Dec. 15, 2021 Defendant left a second comment on Facebook.com citing the removal of the first comment and doubling-down on defendant’s defamatory comments,” the suit said.
“Defendant’s comments include various depictions of Graziano Flowers, and thereby Mr. Graziano himself, many of which are untrue and defamatory. The comments are false and defamatory on their face by imputing serious and egregious statements of employment practices which the plaintiff does not institute. The following statements contained in the comments serve as examples of the false and defamatory language that is offensive to a reasonable person.”
The plaintiffs added that the comments were both malicious and untrue.
“By maliciously and negligently posting these falsehoods in their comments, defendant defamed plaintiff by making it appear that plaintiffs institute unfavorable employment practices and policies that would offend a reasonable person. Plaintiffs do not hold any of these beliefs and have never voiced any of these statements, implied or otherwise, in this manner,” the suit stated.
“The false and defaming comments were available worldwide through the Facebook.com website by looking up the ‘Graziano Flowers’ name, or by viewing defendant’s profile; further, search engines such as Google, Yahoo!, and Ask.com may have linked to defendant’s comments. Defendant has since deleted the defamatory comments from their Facebook.com account, but not before Graziano Flowers received multiple calls on the matter.”
UPDATE
Counsel for Graziano filed a brief in support of its motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) conference on May 13.
“After reasonable investigation, plaintiffs are unable to ascertain the true identity of defendant Jane Doe. Because defendant used a Facebook.com profile to commit the libelous actions in question, plaintiffs can only pray to obtain defendant’s identifying information from Facebook, Inc. Defendant must have had an active profile on Facebook.com, and such active account would have had to be created with an IP address, an email address, and a mobile phone number (or any combination of the three) along with a timestamp of activity on or around Dec. 14 and Dec. 15, 2021. Accordingly, Facebook, Inc. must have records indicating the true identity of defendant, as Facebook.com requires personally identifiable information when opening an account,” the brief stated.
“Plaintiff seeks leave of Court to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Facebook, Inc. This subpoena will demand the IP address, email address, mobile phone number, and timestamp of activity in order to ascertain the true identity of the defendant. Plaintiff will only use this information to prosecute the claims made in its complaint. Without this information, plaintiff can neither serve the defendant nor pursue this lawsuit.”
For counts of defamation per se and false light invasion of privacy, the plaintiffs are seeking the following reliefs:
• Requiring defendant to: A) Print a full retraction stating that plaintiffs do not institute the employment practices complained of in the comments; B) Remove all traces of the defamatory comments; and C) Close any Facebook.com account under the fictitious name Jessica Walters;
• Mandating defendant to conduct an investigation into who, if anyone, made the false and misleading allegations about plaintiffs to defendant in the first place;
• Awarding damages for detraction from plaintiffs’ good names and reputations, for mental anguish, distress and humiliation to Mr. Graziano in an amount not less than $250,000 dollars, or in such greater amount to be proven at trial, and pre-judgment interest and costs;
• Assessing costs and fees incurred in the prosecution of this action; and
• Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiffs are represented by Michael K. Terkanian of Terkanian Law, in Warrington.
The defendant has not yet secured legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01557
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com