Boyd v Automattic, Inc

The case of Boyd v Automattic, Inc. was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, Boyd, sought to initiate defamation proceedings against an unknown party who published allegedly defamatory material on a blog hosted by the respondents, Automattic, Inc. Boyd sought several interlocutory injunctions, including an order for the respondents to disclose the identity of the publisher of the allegedly defamatory material, an order to suspend the domain name and publication of the website, and an order to restrain the publisher from publishing any further defamatory material. The respondents, being domiciled in the United States of America, were in possession of information about the identity of the publishers but could not release it without a court order.

The court considered whether the circumstances justified the making of an order for preliminary discovery for the purposes of commencing defamation litigation. The court held that the circumstances did justify the making of such an order, and therefore, the application for disclosure of identity was treated as an application for preliminary discovery under rule 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The application for interlocutory injunctions was dismissed. The court ordered that the respondents give discovery to the applicant of all documents in their control that are directly relevant to the identification of the person or persons responsible for maintaining the website and placing entries under the username “timboydaustralian” into or on an internet blog maintained at the website. The respondents may comply with this order by either providing a copy of each document to the applicant electronically or by complying with rule 7.25 of the Rules.

There were no orders as to the costs of the application, except that the respondents have liberty to apply for any costs incurred in complying with these orders. The orders are to remain in place unless a party applies for a variation in the terms of the order no later than 12.00 pm on Thursday 7 February 2019. Any application for a variation of the order must be supported by an affidavit explaining why it is expedient to vary the order to assist in the effectiveness of its operation in the United States of America. Any such application shall be heard and determined on the papers.