Transcript of Hearing Portion: Date: Case

Transcript of Hearing Portion
Date: June 12, 2020

Case: Nunes -v- Twitter, Inc., et al.
Planet Depos
Phone: 888.433.3767
Email:: transcripts@planetdepos.com
www.planetdepos.com
WORLDWIDE COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION TECHNOLOGY

1 V I R G I N I A:
2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF HENRICO
3 -----------------------------x
4 DEVIN G. NUNES,
5 Plaintiff,
6 v. Case No. CL19-1715-00
7 TWITTER, INC., et al.,
8 Defendants.
9 -----------------------------x
10
11 Hearing Portion
12 BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN MARSHALL
13 Henrico, Virginia
14 Friday, June 12, 2020
15
16
17
18
19
20 Job No.: 303601
21 Pages: 1 - 45
22 Transcribed by: Bobbi J. Fisher, RPR
Conducted on June 12, 2020 2
1 Hearing on Motions located at:

2
3 Henrico County Circuit Court
4 4301 East Parham Road
5 Henrico, Virginia 23228
6
7 Pursuant to Notice, before Alina Robertson, Digital
8 Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the
9 Commonwealth of Virginia.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
2 ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, DEVIN G. NUNES:
3 STEVEN S. BISS, ESQUIRE
4 LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN S. BISS
5 300 West Main Street, Suite 102
6 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
7
8 JOSHUA MATZ, ESQUIRE
9 KAPLAN HECKER & FINK, LLP
10 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110
11 New York, New York 10118
12
13 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT, TWITTER, INC.:
14 CHARLES K. SEYFARTH, ESQUIRE
15 O'HAGAN MEYER
16 411 East Franklin Street, Suite 500
17 Richmond, Virginia 23219
18 (804) 403-7137
19
20
21
22
PLANET DEPOS
1 ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT, TWITTER, INC.:

2 PATRICK J. CAROME, ESQUIRE (pro hac vice)
3 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR, LLP
4 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
5 Washington, D.C. 20006
6 (202) 663-6000
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
PLANET DEPOS
1 (Begin requested portion.)

2 MR. BISS: Judge, good morning. Steve
3 Biss. I represent Devin Nunes.
4 Judge, I listened to the entire
5 presentation, I have read all the briefs, I have
6 read all the cases that Mr. Carome has cited and
7 there are -- there's never been a time that we have
8 lived in where there has been any kind of platform
9 like Twitter. Twitter is unique in one sense:
10 Didn't exist 25 years ago when the Zeran case was
11 decided. In fact, it didn't exist until 2014. And
12 it has changed the entire face of defamation. It
13 has provided a platform in which you can be -- your
14 reputation can be destroyed in minutes to the tune
15 of millions and millions of publications.
16 There is plenty of cases -- as Mr. Carome
17 knows full well, there's plenty of cases out there
18 that have held that the question whether an entity
19 like Twitter or let's say Gawker or GoDaddy or any
20 other number of internet service provider, ISP,
21 question whether they are content provider, is a
22 question of fact for the jury. Plenty of them.
PLANET DEPOS
1 Because what the cases have identified -- and

2 Mr. Carome can cite as many cases as he wants, but
3 what the cases really describe, if I might use the
4 term "spectrum," they describe a spectrum, Judge.
5 And on the one hand, Mr. Carome has identified --
6 he didn't use the term "bulletin board" but he
7 cited some of the Yelp! cases. I'll use those as
8 an example of the -- I don't want to say left side
9 of the spectrum because this case does involve --
10 and this is one of the reasons why Twitter is a
11 content provider.
12 On the left side of the spectrum, if you
13 will, you have got the pure bulletin board. You
14 have got the Yelp!s where somebody can leave a
15 review. Yelp! doesn't do anything. They just
16 provide a -- Mr. Carome used the phrase "box." You
17 type in your review. Yelp! doesn't do anything.
18 The review stays there. Yelp! doesn't take it
19 down. Yelp! doesn't modify it. Yelp! doesn't add
20 to it. Yelp! doesn't move it onto a particular
21 place on the website. It just sits there.
22 And so that's the -- that's the pure
PLANET DEPOS
1 bulletin board. That's the passive internet

2 service provider, the passive internet service
3 provider, and the cases have said very clearly that
4 if all you do is host a website where you're just a
5 passive internet service provider, you have CDA
6 immunity.
7 On the other end of the spectrum, if
8 you're engaged in political activism, if you are
9 engaged in promoting a particular viewpoint -- and
10 Mr. Carome very clearly acknowledged -- and I
11 appreciate him doing that -- that he says Twitter
12 doesn't promote any political viewpoints but the
13 complaint says they do. And, Judge, that's where I
14 want to -- so that's the spectrum, if you will.
15 And there's cases that fall anywhere within that
16 spectrum.
17 If the website is promoting a political
18 agenda, if the website is inducing others because
19 of its political viewpoint, inducing others to
20 defame those -- in my client's situation, those who
21 just happen to be conservative and conservative
22 republicans, if the website is targeting
PLANET DEPOS
1 conservative republicans, like it has Devin Nunes,

2 as we alleged in the complaint, it's an information
3 content provider because it is materially
4 contributing -- materially contributing -- these
5 are all factual issues -- to the defamation of a
6 particular individual or, in Twitter's case, a
7 whole host of individuals, including, as Your Honor
8 may know from the executive order -- I submitted a
9 copy of the executive order -- including the
10 President of the United States. Twitter has now
11 gone so far as to make its viewpoints -- its
12 political viewpoints extremely well-known. But
13 it's done that for the last two years.
14 So, Judge, I want to start with a couple
15 of propositions, because Mr. Carome seems to think
16 that the question whether or not Twitter is an
17 information content provider -- and I -- just as a
18 matter of -- let me just step back. I don't
19 dispute that they're an internet service provider,
20 the first element that Mr. Carome talks about. By
21 definition, they're an internet service provider.
22 They provide a platform.
PLANET DEPOS
1 The issue in this case is whether or not

2 they are an internet -- whether they're
3 responsible, in whole or part, for the development
4 of content -- the creation or development of
5 content. That's the question. And I would submit
6 to Your Honor that's a -- that's a factual issue
7 for the jury to decide because this is a negligence
8 case. The negligence -- there's no requirement
9 under Virginia law that I allege negligence with
10 any particularity. There's no requirement under
11 Virginia law that I allege -- that I prove their
12 affirmative defense. I don't have to prove it.
13 So let me start with just a couple of
14 points. I have briefed them, so I'll be -- I'll
15 touch on them and I'll move to the main issue of
16 why the CDA doesn't apply, why the Communications
17 Decency Act doesn't apply.
18 Number one, the defense that Mr. Carome
19 raises -- that is, this immunity -- is a -- whether
20 it's absolute or whether it's qualified, it's a
21 defense. And I have cited numerous cases to Your
22 Honor that say these are affirmative defenses. You
PLANET DEPOS
1 can't decide them on a motion to dismiss.

2 Now, Mr. Carome chose to file this motion
3 to dismiss. He didn't file it as a demurrer
4 because, obviously, there would be issues. Didn't
5 file a plea in bar, but he chose a form of
6 procedure that I'm not sure it's recognized by
7 Virginia law, but let's assume it is. And I cited
8 to Your Honor three cases in which the Virginia
9 Supreme Court and some state courts have dealt with
10 motions to dismiss, largely in the context of
11 personal jurisdiction and in the context of --
12 there was a FOIA case and others.
13 But the first point is, this immunity,
14 even if it does apply as an affirmative defense,
15 Twitter has to put on evidence. Twitter has to
16 prove its affirmative defense. The Court --
17 neither the Court nor Twitter can short-circuit the
18 litigation by creating a procedure of its own. And
19 that's really what Mr. Carome is doing. He's
20 trying to create a procedure of his own so that he
21 doesn't have to participate -- his client doesn't
22 have to participate in discovery in this case, and
PLANET DEPOS
1 that's the first point.

2 The first point is, this motion should be
3 denied because it's procedurally improper. It's an
4 affirmative defense. It can't be decided on a
5 motion to dismiss or a demurrer. The burden can't
6 be shifted to me -- to the plaintiff to prove their
7 affirmative defense. The Supreme Court of Virginia
8 said that in Jordan vs. Shands. I think it was a
9 defamation case involving an issue of qualified
10 privilege.
11 The Virginia Supreme Courts addressed it.
12 The federal courts have addressed it. This
13 affirmative defense can't be decided at this stage
14 on -- without evidence.
15 The next point that I want to -- I now
16 want to talk about the CDA. So Twitter was not
17 around in 1996, Your Honor. Twitter was not
18 even -- there was no concept of how -- of this
19 particular platform and the architecture that would
20 allow somebody to push a button and republish a
21 defamatory statement to millions of followers.
22 For instance, CNN, one of my client's
PLANET DEPOS
1 favorite news networks, CNN has 44 million

2 followers on Twitter -- on one of its Twitter
3 accounts. Twitter itself has millions of
4 followers.
5 So this is a platform, Judge, that allows
6 for the instantaneous wreckage of a person's
7 reputation. And let me say this: No one's immune.
8 No one is immune. The CDA was enacted by Congress
9 in 1996 to force ISPs like Twitter to self-regulate
10 themselves. And we have quoted in this our brief,
11 but it -- the act came in response to a New York
12 case that was decided, the Stratton Oakmont case.
13 And at Stratton Oakmont, one of the old -- oldies
14 but goodies prodigy had decided, in its infinite
15 wisdom, to delete certain defamatory tweets but not
16 all of them. So it decided to interject itself
17 into the conversation in part, and the New York
18 court decided that once you -- as an internet
19 service provider, once you interject yourself into
20 this conversation, this defamatory conversation,
21 once you take a side, you are liable as a
22 republisher. So they pass the -- they pass the
PLANET DEPOS
1 CDA.
2 And the purpose of the CDA was not to
3 grant absolute immunity under all circumstances to
4 ISPs. Rather, the purpose of the CDA was to
5 promote filtering technologies to protect children,
6 to deter and punish trafficking and obscenity,
7 stalking and harassment, and by the exact wordage
8 in the CDA, it was designed to provide immunity to
9 good samaritans; good samaritans, Judge, who
10 decided to remove content that the good samaritan
11 deemed to be obscene, harassing, stalking. So it
12 was designed to protect the good samaritan who
13 removed user-generated content. This case is not
14 about the removal of user-generated content at all
15 because Twitter didn't remove it. Twitter
16 knowingly allowed it to stay up, and Twitter did
17 other things that I'm going to get to.
18 So the CDA doesn't apply in this case. I
19 would submit to Your Honor that under Virginia law,
20 which applies to this case, the CDA is a derogation
21 of the common law, and it ought to receive strict
22 construction. It ought to apply and by its terms
PLANET DEPOS
1 does apply only to good samaritans who remove

2 information from the platform. And we have cited
3 in our brief the cases that quote the legislative
4 history and describe what the purpose was of this
5 particular statute.
6 The statute identifies and defines
7 internet content provider as a person or entity
8 responsible in whole or part for the development of
9 information provided through the internet. It's an
10 extremely broad definition. The word "responsible"
11 is not defined. The word "development" or
12 "developer" is not defined. The word "creation" is
13 not defined. And those particular phrases, Judge,
14 have extremely broad reach.
15 Now, Devin Nunes has alleged in his
16 complaint -- and this ought to be the end of the
17 inquiry at this stage -- he has alleged in his
18 complaint that Twitter is an information content
19 provider. It's in paragraph 2. It's right out of
20 the gate and he alleges why and he alleges facts in
21 support. That ought to be the end of the inquiry
22 here.
PLANET DEPOS
1 If there is a standard of review that

2 applies to a motion to dismiss, it ought to be, as
3 the Virginia Supreme Court suggests in the cases
4 that I cited, it ought to be the standard that
5 applies to the demurrer. It's a well-established
6 standard, and I'm not sure I even need to repeat
7 it. It's a well-established standard. The
8 Virginia Supreme Court has been very clear about
9 motions like this one that attempt to short-circuit
10 litigation, that attempt to deprive the Supreme
11 Court and the trial court of an opportunity to
12 develop a record here as to what Twitter is doing
13 and why Twitter is doing, what their interaction is
14 with these anonymous accounts because this -- the
15 actions that they have taken clearly put them in
16 the category of a content developer.
17 The definition of developer that I would
18 commend to the Court is a simple dictionary
19 definition. Miriam Webster is what I consult. And
20 I think that's a source, Judge, that the Virginia
21 Supreme Court has used from time to time. There
22 are other dictionaries; I think they all say the
PLANET DEPOS
1 same, quite frankly.

2 "Developer" is to develop something; to
3 make it visible or manifest; to create or produce,
4 especially by deliberate effort over time; to make
5 active or promote the growth of; to cease, to
6 evolve, or unfold; to cause -- sorry, to cause to
7 evolve or unfold; to come into being gradually.
8 Now, those broad definitions of "develop"
9 can be applied to the facts of this case without
10 any particular question. Mr. Carome said is there
11 any case out there that talks about, you know, the
12 circumstances under which somebody can be found to
13 be a content developer. They all talk about it.
14 Again, the cases follow this whole spectrum, and
15 there's a case which I believe we cited. It's
16 the -- and it's one of the seminal cases that
17 everybody -- that all the defense counsel are
18 afraid of. It's the Gawker case. Because the
19 Gawker case was a situation where Gawker used its
20 platform to engage in mass defamation. And the
21 case went to the jury, and the jury returned a
22 verdict so large that Gawker declared bankruptcy.
PLANET DEPOS
1 But this is what the Court said in one of

2 the Gawker cases where the website filed a CDA
3 response, and they said that "a company can,
4 however, be liable for creating and posting,
5 inducing another to post, or otherwise actively
6 participating in the posting of a defamatory
7 statement in a forum that that company maintains."
8 And that, Judge, is a -- is consistent
9 with the broad definition under the CDA of when
10 somebody is a content provider, it's entirely
11 consistent.
12 In this particular case, the plaintiff
13 has alleged that Twitter is a content provider,
14 and, again, not to beat a dead horse, but where we
15 are in this stage of the proceeding under Virginia
16 law, that ought to be enough, especially in a
17 negligence action.
18 We have alleged specifically that Twitter
19 engages in explicit censorship. Twitter disputes
20 that. We have alleged that Twitter shadow-banned
21 Devin Nunes and others for the expressed purpose of
22 amplifying the defamation of these particular
PLANET DEPOS
1 defendants. We have alleged -- and Twitter

2 disputes that they shadow-banned. Twitter -- I
3 believe Twitter will go to its grave disputing that
4 they shadow-banned, although they have admitted it
5 in some -- at some time.
6 We have alleged that Twitter hosts and
7 monetizing the harmful content here. We have
8 alleged that Twitter, as Mr. Carome did point out,
9 that Twitter expressly ignored the complaint to
10 third parties that this information was hurting
11 Devin Nunes, "take it down, it's defamatory." It's
12 what Twitter, by Twitter's own terms of service
13 they describe as hateful conduct, harassment, but
14 Twitter has selectively decided to leave this
15 defamation up.
16 Mind you -- as I pointed out in my brief,
17 Judge, mind you, Twitter sees fit to take down the
18 parity account of a person who is making fun of
19 Congressman Ocasio-Cortez. Twitter decides, well,
20 we'll take that down because that doesn't -- that
21 doesn't suit our political agenda. But do they
22 take down -- do they take down anything that
PLANET DEPOS
1 defames Devin Nunes? No. Because their agenda --

2 their purpose is to promote this defamation.
3 That's their purpose. And we have alleged that,
4 Judge, in the complaint, and although Mr. Carome
5 does not want to admit those facts as true, he has
6 to accept them as true. That's the procedure.
7 And we're all safe, we're all sound
8 because of the rule of law. That's why we were
9 safe and sound. That's why the Constitution
10 provides people with an opportunity to have a trial
11 on the merits. That's why, because it keeps --
12 there are rules to be followed, and the rule here
13 is these allegations are -- must be accepted as
14 true.
15 Twitter, in addition, has abandoned its
16 own -- the lengths to which Twitter will go to
17 promote the defamation of Devin Nunes is truly
18 exemplified by their abandonment of their own terms
19 and services. They will -- they will take down
20 defamatory content posted against Ocasio-Cortez but
21 they won't take it down posted against Devin Nunes.
22 They'll flag -- as they did a few weeks ago, they
PLANET DEPOS
1 will flag tweets by the President of the United

2 States, but they won't flag Nancy Pelosi. They
3 won't flag -- and, Judge, these are very
4 high-profile individuals, I understand all that,
5 and these are politicians, but that's not the issue
6 right now. The issue is whether Twitter has
7 engaged in content development, and I would submit
8 to Your Honor that by abandoning your own terms and
9 service and joining the opposition, joining the
10 anti-Nunes campaign, that pretty much shows that
11 you're materially contributing to the content.
12 Mr. Carome talked about the algorithms.
13 And, Judge, the cases that he cite really don't
14 talk about the manipulation that Twitter has
15 engaged in, that we have alleged in this case, the
16 manipulation of their algorithms to highlight and
17 promote defamation of particular individuals like
18 Devin Nunes. They have used their targeting --
19 they have targeting capabilities where they can
20 target individuals; we allege that's what they have
21 done in this case. And Twitter is most certainly,
22 according to this complaint -- and we believe the
PLANET DEPOS
1 evidence will show -- promoting a political agenda.

2 And that political agenda is anti-Nunes,
3 anti-Republicans, anti-GOP, anti-Donald Trump,
4 anti -- I can go on and on and on. There's
5 literally hundreds of examples of Twitter's
6 anti-Republican stance, the shadow-banning of
7 Congressman Jim Jordan out of Ohio, the
8 shadow-banning of anybody -- all of the leading
9 republicans related to the impeachment hearings.
10 What Twitter has done -- and this is why
11 they're an internet content provider. What Twitter
12 has done is they have provided a public square to
13 Liz Mair. They have provided a public square to
14 these two anonymous accounts: DevinCow and
15 DevinNunesMom. And DevinNunesMom, that account was
16 shut down at some point in time. I don't know
17 when. The evidence will show it was shut down at
18 some point in time, not before it managed to engage
19 in what might be described as an unprecedented
20 defamation of Devin Nunes. This is unprecedented,
21 what it's doing. And the CDA was designed to
22 encourage Twitter to self-regulate -- ISPs to
PLANET DEPOS
1 self-regulate. They're not self-regulating.

2 They're getting worse.
3 Judge, Mr. Carome would have you just
4 focus on one of these elements. He would say, oh,
5 you know, there is shadow-banning. Shadow-banning
6 alone can't constitute content creation or content
7 development, but when you add up each of the items
8 that I have -- each of the facts that I just
9 described, if you put those together and when you
10 consider them in the context of what's happening to
11 my client and what has happened to him, because
12 it's still happening to this day. It's still
13 happening. What they're doing is still going on
14 today.
15 When you add all those factors together,
16 there's an issue of fact. There is -- there is
17 a -- there's evidence that needs to be heard by a
18 fact-finder. There is experts who will opine that
19 this is content creation. They are, for all
20 intents and purposes, creating content.
21 And, Judge, I will respectfully submit
22 that if Mr. Carome's position is adopted, there's
PLANET DEPOS
1 nothing anyone can ever -- Twitter can do whatever

2 it wants. They can take whatever side they want.
3 They can promote whatever political viewpoint they
4 want to promote. They can engage in any form of
5 censorship they want. They can engage in any kind
6 of shadow-banning. They can populate their entire
7 website with Liz Mairs so that no viewpoint is ever
8 accepted. And I don't use Twitter, but it is -- it
9 is -- they have held themselves out as being a
10 neutral website. And that's really where the buck
11 should stop here. They're actively -- they're
12 not --
13 THE COURT: Who says you have to be
14 neutral, Mr. Biss?
15 MR. BISS: Pardon me, Your Honor?
16 THE COURT: Doesn't the cases show that
17 you don't have to be neutral?
18 MR. BISS: You don't have to be neutral,
19 but Judge --
20 THE COURT: But the one -- the site that
21 only solicited negative comments. It didn't want
22 any positive. I mean, it's not that you -- I don't
PLANET DEPOS
1 know of any requirement in the law for these

2 entities, that they have to be neutral.
3 MR. BISS: Judge, the cases all routinely
4 say that, where the ISP is not a mere passive
5 conduit, it can have liability. That's what the
6 cases say.
7 The cases protect Twitter if it's a
8 passive conduit.
9 THE COURT: Right, but doesn't this case
10 not get -- I'll get into the procedure stuff with
11 Mr. Carome first about whether we're at the right
12 stage of the proceedings to be dealing with this
13 motion.
14 But isn't this case centered upon --
15 you're arguing that they somehow contributed to
16 what Ms. Mair, Cow, and Mom put up.
17 MR. BISS: Yes, sir.
18 THE COURT: And they're saying that, no,
19 you have admitted that these things were posted by
20 Mair, Cow and Mom. They were merely -- they
21 created it. They put it on Twitter. And that
22 falls into 230, but you're saying, Well, there's
PLANET DEPOS
1 other -- that there's more to it than the fact that

2 they just allowed it to go there. Because I don't
3 think you're alleging that they somehow -- Twitter
4 or someone with Twitter sat in a room with
5 Ms. Mair, Nunes or Mom or Cow and crafted these
6 posts to put them up on the platform.
7 MR. BISS: You're right.
8 THE COURT: Okay.
9 MR. BISS: I don't have -- and I haven't
10 alleged and I don't have evidence that Twitter was
11 instigating this. I don't have that evidence.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 MR. BISS: I think that's what Your Honor
14 is asking me --
15 THE COURT: Correct. And that's the
16 argument that Mr. Carome is making. It says in the
17 bare bones, simple scenario, they have allowed it
18 to go up there. One can argue whether that's good,
19 bad, or indifferent than what they allowed to go up
20 there. But the Zeran case said, Well, just because
21 you don't like it and you ask them to take it down
22 doesn't mean they're liable if they don't take it
PLANET DEPOS
1 down.
2 MR. BISS: Judge, and I was going to talk
3 about the Zeran case. So the point that Your Honor
4 is talking about is the second element where the
5 content is uploaded by a third party.
6 THE COURT: Mm-hmm.
7 MR. BISS: That's the second element.
8 The third element of this analysis is
9 whether they are -- whether they are responsible
10 for the development or creation of the content in
11 whole or in any part. And the statute is very
12 clear: If they're responsible in whole or in any
13 part for the development of the content, they
14 are --
15 THE COURT: You just told me you had no
16 evidence that they were.
17 MR. BISS: No, I said no evidence, Judge,
18 that they were responsible for the tweets or for
19 the --
20 THE COURT: But that's -- I asked you
21 about the development of the tweet. In other
22 words, no one from Twitter or associated with
PLANET DEPOS
1 Twitter was sitting in the room with Ms. Mair,

2 Nunes, or Cow -- I mean, Mom or Cow and decided
3 what the tweet was going to be and put it up.
4 MR. BISS: No, but it's more than that,
5 Judge. Okay? It's much more than that.
6 THE COURT: Well, what more is there to
7 the development of a tweet?
8 MR. BISS: Well --
9 THE COURT: Because I don't have Twitter,
10 so I wouldn't know.
11 MR. BISS: I understand. So Twitter is
12 promoting a political agenda.
13 THE COURT: But that has nothing to do
14 with the tweet itself. We're dealing -- this
15 case -- the defamation that you're alleging is
16 arising from these tweets, is it not?
17 MR. BISS: It is, Judge. And so they
18 provide the platform.
19 THE COURT: I understand that.
20 MR. BISS: They induced Liz Mair to post
21 on the platform because that's what they do. They
22 provide the platform to her. They increased the
PLANET DEPOS
1 defamatory nature of this by increasing the traffic

2 to their platform, by allowing this to happen.
3 That's what they're doing.
4 We have alleged that they induced these
5 comments to be made by providing this platform,
6 allowing her to post, allowing Mom and Cow to post,
7 and then promoting this agenda -- this anti-Nunes
8 agenda that allows these people to continue to pile
9 on using their platform.
10 THE COURT: Well, what cases say that's
11 illegal or actionable under the law?
12 MR. BISS: There's no case like this
13 case. There is no case.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MR. BISS: None.
16 THE COURT: All right.
17 MR. BISS: Because that's not all they
18 do. They then go and they shadow-ban Devin Nunes
19 and they shadow-ban his followers so that what that
20 does is that amplifies the defamation, because the
21 only thing that people see are these defamatory
22 statements. They censor -- and it all comes under
PLANET DEPOS
1 the heading or the rubric of censorship. They're

2 doing more than just allowing Liz Mair to post a
3 tweet. They're doing much more than that. In
4 fact, they're engaged in -- they're reshaping the
5 content. They're making it louder. They're making
6 it so that Devin Nunes can't respond to it, so he
7 can't see -- his followers can't see things.
8 They're shadow-banning. They're doing a lot more
9 than just allowing a person to post a tweet, and
10 that's what we have alleged. They're increasing
11 the volume and the breadth of the publication by
12 their actions. And we say they're doing it
13 deliberately because it's consistent with the
14 agenda that they're promoting, the anti-Nunes
15 agenda that they're promoting.
16 They are knowingly encouraging this
17 defamation. They're not just sitting back and
18 allowing it to happen. They're encouraging it and
19 they're substantially or substantively
20 participating in it by their actions.
21 THE COURT: But your arguments are that
22 they're encouraging it by merely allowing it to be
PLANET DEPOS
1 posted.
2 MR. BISS: It's not just allowing it to
3 be posted, Judge. They are -- they're encouraging
4 the defamation, they are engaging in deliberate
5 action to squelch any kind of opposition to it. So
6 what that does is that makes it appear on Twitter's
7 platform --
8 THE COURT: And that's that editorial
9 component that's suggested by 230; right?
10 MR. BISS: Yeah, but the editorial is a
11 red herring.
12 THE COURT: Well, I mean --
13 MR. BISS: Political activists and,
14 Judge, it's not editorial --
15 THE COURT: I don't know that it is a red
16 herring because you submitted the executive order.
17 Doesn't that indicate, by that executive order,
18 that 230 is giving these -- at least in some folks'
19 minds -- giving them too much immunity, and,
20 therefore, maybe an executive order could change
21 that if Congress hasn't changed it?
22 MR. BISS: It says -- the executive order
PLANET DEPOS
1 says, in 14 different places, it uses the word

2 "content." The concern is that Twitter --
3 THE COURT: But that's not the law.
4 MR. BISS: The concern is that Twitter
5 has now crossed into the realm of content
6 development --
7 THE COURT: I understand that and I read
8 the -- well, I think it was the Ninth Circuit that
9 said that this isn't the Wild, Wild West. Well,
10 how -- or maybe that was a little -- maybe they
11 were foreseeing what was coming and maybe we do
12 have the Wild, Wild West now, as you said, that
13 wasn't contemplated when 230 was put into play.
14 But isn't it Congress's place to go back
15 and change 230 to put some limitations on this
16 immunity that's given in this code section?
17 MR. BISS: Judge, I think that's one
18 issue. But the issue is whether or not, in the
19 context of this case, Twitter might be found by a
20 jury to be a content developer. That's the issue.
21 Whether Congress has to change it --
22 THE COURT: Well, the issue is whether
PLANET DEPOS
1 you can get to the jury.

2 MR. BISS: Well, again, Judge --
3 THE COURT: That's what we're here for
4 now.
5 MR. BISS: Well, Judge, at this stage of
6 the case, we have clearly and unequivocally --
7 THE COURT: On the pleading.
8 MR. BISS: -- on the pleading.
9 THE COURT: I'll give you that.
10 MR. BISS: Clearly alleged.
11 Now, that gives my client is right to do
12 discovery to prove that he's right. And if he has
13 no discovery, he can't prove it, then Mr. Carome
14 has an option, and that option is very clear, and
15 that's a -- I think it's still 3:18 -- summary
16 judgment. If he thinks that he's -- there's no
17 evidence, we can't prove anything, he can bring
18 this right back to the Court on summary judgment.
19 He can say Nunes had a full and fair opportunity to
20 engage in discovery, and there's -- as Mr. Carome
21 says, we're not -- there's no shadow-banning. We
22 don't -- we don't -- we're not engaged in any kind
PLANET DEPOS
1 of political action -- actionism here.

2 This case is about -- Twitter's changed,
3 Judge. They changed. They're not just a website
4 anymore. They're engaged in activism. They're
5 like -- I likened it in the brief, they're like a
6 SuperPAC.
7 THE COURT: As I said, 230 doesn't
8 prevent that.
9 MR. BISS: It does. That's their
10 conduct.
11 THE COURT: No, no --
12 MR. BISS: 230 only prevents them from
13 being deemed to be -- if you believe it applies and
14 it doesn't apply just to good samaritans -- if
15 you -- it only applies to them being deemed to be a
16 publisher or a speaker. It doesn't apply to their
17 conduct. In this case, we're alleging conduct.
18 It's the way they operate --
19 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Biss --
20 MR. BISS: It's like a car.
21 THE COURT: What if Twitter's platform --
22 let's just reduce it down. Like the platform that
PLANET DEPOS
1 only wanted negative comments about consumers.

2 What if Twitter's platform was we only will -- we
3 only want Republican-based tweets on our platform?
4 That's allowed under the law.
5 MR. BISS: But that's not --
6 THE COURT: Your argument here now is
7 it's purporting to be for everyone but it's not for
8 everyone. It's choosing to go another way. And
9 you just admitted that if it was set up to say we
10 only want this content, just like we only want the
11 negative contents, that it wouldn't be -- there's
12 nothing illegal about that under the law.
13 MR. BISS: Well, that's not our case.
14 Our case is with the ConsumerAffairs case. Twitter
15 wasn't set up just to --
16 THE COURT: I understand. But I gave you
17 the hypothetical. You're saying it was set up to
18 be for everyone but now it's not for everyone and
19 that's our complaint.
20 MR. BISS: Well, it's not just "it's not
21 for everyone." It's about Twitter. It's about how
22 their conduct has changed. Their conduct, Judge,
PLANET DEPOS
1 originally was "we'll let everybody tweet whatever

2 they want to tweet" and you get 40 characters.
3 Then they changed it to 180 characters. You can do
4 whatever you want. Now, they're different.
5 THE COURT: Mr. Carome's argument is,
6 it's allowed under 230 for them to do that.
7 MR. BISS: Well, Mr. Carome's argument is
8 wrong to the extent that he's saying --
9 THE COURT: Well, we wouldn't be here if
10 it was right.
11 MR. BISS: I understand. Mr. Carome's
12 argument is wrong because Twitter cannot be a
13 political activist and have CDA immunity. It
14 cannot be out there.
15 It's like these protests in Seattle or
16 wherever you want to see them. It can't be out
17 there being a political activist in the street and
18 still have CDA immunity for its actions. And
19 that's what it's doing. It's a political activist
20 that is promoting the defamatory content that is
21 posted on its website. That is -- that's the
22 development in some part of content. That's how
PLANET DEPOS
1 it's developing the message. And that's what

2 SuperPACs do. That's what political activists do.
3 They message. They have a loud and clear message
4 for their constituents. That's what Twitter is
5 doing in this case. And they're doing it -- in
6 addition to censorship, they're doing it by, as I
7 said before, other facts that we have alleged, the
8 selective enforcement of their terms of service.
9 So they enforced their terms of service
10 against Devin Nunes and against his followers but
11 they don't enforce it against Liz Mair and her
12 followers.
13 Judge, that takes it -- that's conduct.
14 That's not an editorial function. That's conduct.
15 And on all of these facts, all put together,
16 there's more than enough to -- for a jury to decide
17 that, yeah, they, in some respect, they're
18 responsible for the content that they allow --
19 continue to allow to be posted on their website.
20 And that's the -- that's where we are in this case.
21 The policies, the actions that Twitter
22 has taken, it's the primary motive for why Liz Mair
PLANET DEPOS
1 and DevinCow and DevinNunesMom and a whole host of

2 others continue to defame my client. It's
3 Twitter's actions that are motivating this.
4 Judge, the last point I want to make -- I
5 think I have addressed the CDA issues, and I don't
6 want to repeat, to a large extent, what I have
7 already written in the brief, but I just want to
8 indicate that, in my review of Virginia law, where
9 the allegations in a negligence case are that
10 Twitter is a content provider, at this stage, those
11 have to be accepted as true. These allegations
12 have to be accepted as true. I don't see any
13 support for Mr. Carome's argument that you can get
14 around that. I don't think you can apply Federal
15 Rules of Civil Procedure. He wants you to
16 provide -- to use the Zeran case that was decided
17 under Federal Rule 12(c).
18 THE COURT: He only wants me to use it
19 for some purposes.
20 MR. BISS: I understand. I got that.
21 THE COURT: What we're going to talk
22 about now is I don't think he wants me to use it
PLANET DEPOS
1 for.
2 MR. BISS: Judge, a couple of last
3 points, if I may. We have also filed a complaint
4 against Twitter for injunction -- for injunctive
5 relief. I cited a GoDaddy case. It's the one I
6 could find. I think it's on this particular point.
7 So Twitter doesn't get out of its case,
8 even if the Court says that it can't be sued for
9 negligence under the CDA. Twitter doesn't get out
10 of this case.
11 And then the other point that I wanted to
12 raise with Your Honor is, in preparing for this
13 hearing, I looked at all the cases on information
14 content providers, and I came across two decisions.
15 One is a Massachusetts Port Authority case in the
16 Superior of Massachusetts court case and also a --
17 I think it's a First Circuit case.
18 And these cases were interesting to me
19 because they taught me a lesson that -- I might
20 have missed a few claims against an ISP. And these
21 two cases, and they stand for the proposition --
22 the Massachusetts Port Authority case is 2020
PLANET DEPOS
1 Westlaw 1028822, and the Homeaway.com vs. City of

2 Santa Monica is 918 F.3d 676. It's a Ninth Circuit
3 case from 2019. These two cases stand for the
4 proposition that the ISP or the entity claiming CDA
5 protection does not have that protection for aiding
6 and abetting because the aiding and abetting is a
7 direct claim against the ISP. And I want to bring
8 that to Your Honor's attention because I want to
9 have an opportunity to amend this complaint if I
10 need to.
11 In the Massachusetts Port Authority case,
12 the ISP facilitated trespass. And I have got a
13 copy of these cases for Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MR. BISS: The other case, the City of
16 Santa Monica passed an ordinance that restricted --
17 required licensing of booking transactions online.
18 And the Homeaway.com claimed that the City of Santa
19 Monica's statute violated the CDA. And the Court
20 said, no, it doesn't violate the CDA at all because
21 you, Homeaway.com, are engaged in unlicensed
22 booking transactions, and the fact is, you're
PLANET DEPOS
1 aiding and abetting third parties in that unlawful

2 conduct.
3 So I would ask the Court, at the very
4 least, for leave to amend the complaint to allege a
5 claim of aiding and abetting, defamation. Virginia
6 recognizes the tort of aiding and abetting, an
7 intentional tort. Defamation is an intentional
8 tort, and there are a legion of cases that talk
9 about that.
10 Judge, the bottom line in this particular
11 case at this stage -- and I have also -- I have
12 also cited some other procedural objections that my
13 client has to the way Twitter is proceeding here.
14 My reading of Rule 3:8(b) is that they should have
15 filed an answer after Your Honor denied their
16 motion to dismiss. I'm not sure where we stopped,
17 though. This is the last motion to dismiss or
18 we're just at the beginning. But my client objects
19 to that kind of -- the way we're proceeding. The
20 case should be set for trial, an answer should be
21 filed in the case, Twitter shouldn't get to file
22 third, fourth, who knows how many motions to
PLANET DEPOS
1 dismiss. I think that approach is inconsistent

2 with the Virginia rules, especially Rule 3:8.
3 And, Judge, I have also filed -- and I
4 noticed it for hearing -- a motion to compel, and I
5 have got a -- I filed a motion as well to extend
6 the time to serve the anonymous Twitter accounts
7 because, of course, the year is up. I filed a
8 motion to extend the time before the year ran, but
9 I need the discovery in this case in order to
10 figure out who DevinCow is and who DevinNunesMom
11 is. I need my discovery. And I can't serve them
12 if I don't know who they are.
13 And so I filed a motion to compel in
14 August, I believe, of 2019. Twitter responded with
15 a motion for protective order. They said that,
16 Well, we're not going to give you any discovery
17 until after Judge Marshall rules on the motion to
18 dismiss, the first one. And you ruled on it, and
19 they still didn't give me any discovery. They
20 filed a -- and so I moved -- I noticed my motion to
21 compel for hearing. I have agreed to narrow down
22 the request a bit.
PLANET DEPOS
1 And they filed a second motion for

2 protective order saying, nope, nope, not going to
3 give you any discovery until the Court rules on
4 this motion to dismiss.
5 Judge, I think, with great respect to
6 Mr. Carome, it is -- I can't proceed against two
7 defendants in this case, and I have gone to the
8 extent to inform the Court as to what we have done
9 to try and find DevinCow, for instance. We pay
10 attention to what's published on Twitter every day.
11 We pay attention to what's published on the
12 internet relating to DevinCow.
13 As painful as that is every day to read
14 the comments, we listen to them, and sometimes
15 people post comments that tell you who these people
16 are, but we have reached a dead end with DevinCow.
17 And I would ask the Court to compel Twitter to
18 respond to the remaining aspects of the discovery
19 in this case. And there aren't that many of them.
20 The ones, Judge -- and, Judge, I have got a copy of
21 the Twitter discovery. May I just hand that up to
22 you?
PLANET DEPOS
1 THE COURT: Sure. He'll get it.

2 MR. BISS: So I agree to narrow it down.
3 Some of the discovery that I served on Twitter
4 related to jurisdictional issues, so that's behind
5 us, but I have -- the request for production of
6 documents, Judge, I'm looking for responses to --
7 I'm looking for responses to No. 8, 9, 11 -- 8, 9,
8 and 11. I can narrow it down to 8, 9, and 11, and
9 that, Judge, will allow me hopefully to get a bead
10 on who DevinCow is and where he lives so I can go
11 ahead and serve him with a copy of the lawsuit.
12 Judge, I think that's -- that's all I
13 have. If the Court has any questions, I'd be happy
14 to answer them.
15 THE COURT: All right.
16 MR. BISS: Thank you.
17 (End of requested portion.)
18
19
20
21
22
PLANET DEPOS
1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER - NOTARY PUBLIC

2
3 I, Alina Robertson, the officer before
4 whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby
5 certify that said proceedings were electronically
6 recorded by me; and that I am neither counsel for,
7 related to, nor employed by any of the parties to
8 this case and have no interest, financial or
9 otherwise, in its outcome.
10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
11 hand and affixed my notarial seal this 12th day of
12 June, 2020.
13
14
15 __________________________
16 Alina Robertson, Notary Public
17 for the Commonwealth of Virginia
18
19 Notary Registration No.: 7858471
20 My Commission Expires: 11/30/2024
21
22
PLANET DEPOS
1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
2
3 I, Bobbi J. Fisher, RPR, CET, do hereby
4 certify that the foregoing transcript is a true and
5 correct record of the recorded proceedings; that
6 said proceedings were transcribed to the best of my
7 ability from the audio recording and supporting
8 information; and that I am neither counsel for,
9 related to, nor employed by any of the parties to
10 this case, and I have no interest, financial or
11 otherwise, in its outcome.
12
13
14 __________________________
15 Bobbi J. Fisher, RPR, CET
16 NCRA Registered Professional Reporter (RPR)
17 AAERT Certified Electronic Transcriber No. CET-1148
18 June 16, 2020
19
20
21
22
PLANET DEPOS
A actionable against alleged
aaert 28:11 19:20, 19:21, 8:2, 14:15,
45:17 actionism 36:10, 36:11, 14:17, 17:13,
abandoned 33:1 38:4, 38:20, 17:18, 17:20,
19:15 actions 39:7, 42:6 18:1, 18:6,
abandoning 15:15, 29:12, agenda 18:8, 19:3,
20:8 29:20, 35:18, 7:18, 18:21, 20:15, 25:10,
abandonment 36:21, 37:3 19:1, 21:1, 28:4, 29:10,
19:18 active 21:2, 27:12, 32:10, 36:7
abetting 16:5 28:7, 28:8, alleges
39:6, 40:1, actively 29:14, 29:15 14:20
40:5, 40:6 17:5, 23:11 ago alleging
ability activism 5:10, 19:22 25:3, 27:15,
45:7 7:8, 33:4 agree 33:17
about activist 43:2 allow
8:20, 11:16, 35:13, 35:17, agreed 11:20, 36:18,
13:14, 15:8, 35:19 41:21 36:19, 43:9
16:11, 16:13, activists ahead allowed
20:12, 20:14, 30:13, 36:2 43:11 13:16, 25:2,
24:11, 26:3, add aiding 25:17, 25:19,
26:4, 26:21, 6:19, 22:7, 39:5, 39:6, 34:4, 35:6
33:2, 34:1, 22:15 40:1, 40:5, 40:6 allowing
34:12, 34:21, addition al 28:2, 28:6,
37:22, 40:9 19:15, 36:6 1:7 29:2, 29:9,
absolute addressed algorithms 29:18, 29:22,
9:20, 13:3 11:11, 11:12, 20:12, 20:16 30:2
accept 37:5 alina allows
19:6 admit 2:7, 44:3, 12:5, 28:8
accepted 19:5 44:16 alone
19:13, 23:8, admitted all 22:6
37:11, 37:12 18:4, 24:19, 5:5, 5:6, 7:4, already
according 34:9 8:5, 12:16, 37:7
20:22 adopted 13:3, 13:14, also
account 22:22 15:22, 16:13, 4:1, 38:3,
18:18, 21:15 affirmative 16:17, 19:7, 38:16, 40:11,
accounts 9:12, 9:22, 20:4, 21:8, 40:12, 41:3
12:3, 15:14, 10:14, 10:16, 22:15, 22:19, although
21:14, 41:6 11:4, 11:7, 24:3, 28:16, 18:4, 19:4
acknowledged 11:13 28:17, 28:22, amend
7:10 affixed 36:15, 38:13, 39:9, 40:4
across 44:11 39:20, 43:12, amplifies
afraid 43:15 28:20
38:14 allegations
act 16:18 amplifying
after 19:13, 37:9, 17:22
9:17, 12:11 37:11
action 40:15, 41:17 analysis
again allege 26:8
17:17, 30:5, 9:9, 9:11,
33:1 16:14, 17:14, anonymous
32:2 20:20, 40:4 15:14, 21:14,
PLANET DEPOS
41:6 15:5, 33:13, authority behind
another 33:15 38:15, 38:22, 43:4
17:5, 34:8 apply 39:11 being
answer 9:16, 9:17, avenue 16:7, 23:9,
40:15, 40:20, 10:14, 13:18, 3:10, 4:4 33:13, 33:15,
43:14 13:22, 14:1, B 35:17
anti 33:14, 33:16, back believe
21:4 37:14 8:18, 29:17, 16:15, 18:3,
anti-donald appreciate 31:14, 32:18 20:22, 33:13,
21:3 7:11 bad 41:14
anti-gop approach 25:19 best
21:3 41:1 bankruptcy 45:6
anti-nunes architecture 16:22 biss
20:10, 21:2, 11:19 bar 3:3, 3:4, 5:2,
28:7, 29:14 aren't 10:5 5:3, 23:14,
anti-republican 42:19 bare 23:15, 23:18,
21:6 argue 25:17 24:3, 24:17,
anti-republicans 25:18 bead 25:7, 25:9,
21:3 arguing 43:9 25:13, 26:2,
any 24:15 beat 26:7, 26:17,
5:8, 5:19, argument 27:4, 27:8,
17:14 27:11, 27:17,
7:12, 9:10, 25:16, 34:6, because
16:10, 16:11, 35:5, 35:7, 27:20, 28:12,
6:1, 6:9, 7:18, 28:15, 28:17,
23:4, 23:5, 35:12, 37:13 8:3, 8:15, 9:7,
23:22, 24:1, arguments 30:2, 30:10,
10:4, 11:3, 30:13, 30:22,
26:11, 26:12, 29:21 13:15, 15:14,
30:5, 32:22, arising 31:4, 31:17,
16:18, 18:20, 32:2, 32:5,
37:12, 41:16, 27:16 19:1, 19:8,
41:19, 42:3, around 32:8, 32:10,
19:11, 22:11, 33:9, 33:12,
43:13, 44:7, 11:17, 37:14 25:2, 25:20,
45:9 asked 33:19, 33:20,
27:9, 27:21, 34:5, 34:13,
anybody 26:20 28:17, 28:20,
21:8 asking 34:20, 35:7,
29:13, 30:16, 35:11, 37:20,
anymore 25:14 35:12, 38:19,
33:4 aspects 38:2, 39:15,
39:6, 39:8, 43:2, 43:16
anyone 42:18 39:20, 41:7
23:1 associated bit
been 41:22
anything 26:22 5:7, 5:8, 15:8
6:15, 6:17, assume board
before 6:6, 6:13, 7:1
18:22, 32:17 10:7 1:12, 2:7,
anywhere attempt bobbi
21:18, 36:7, 1:22, 45:3,
7:15 15:9, 15:10 41:8, 44:3
appear attention 45:15
begin bones
30:6 39:8, 42:10, 5:1
applied 42:11 25:17
beginning booking
16:9 audio 40:18
applies 45:7 39:17, 39:22
behalf bottom
13:20, 15:2, august 3:2, 3:13, 4:1
41:14 40:10
PLANET DEPOS
box 6:2, 6:5, 6:16, 15:3, 16:14, changed
6:16 7:10, 8:15, 16:16, 17:2, 5:12, 30:21,
breadth 8:20, 9:18, 20:13, 23:16, 33:2, 33:3,
29:11 10:2, 10:19, 24:3, 24:6, 34:22, 35:3
brief 16:10, 18:8, 24:7, 28:10, characters
12:10, 14:3, 19:4, 20:12, 38:13, 38:18, 35:2, 35:3
18:16, 33:5, 22:3, 24:11, 38:21, 39:3, charles
37:7 25:16, 32:13, 39:13, 40:8 3:14
briefed 32:20, 42:6 category charlottesville
9:14 carome's 15:16 3:6
briefs 22:22, 35:5, cause children
5:5 35:7, 35:11, 16:6 13:5
bring 37:13 cda choosing
32:17, 39:7 case 7:5, 9:16, 34:8
broad 1:6, 5:10, 6:9, 11:16, 12:8, chose
14:10, 14:14, 8:6, 9:1, 9:8, 13:1, 13:2, 10:2, 10:5
16:8, 17:9 10:12, 10:22, 13:4, 13:8, circuit
buck 11:9, 12:12, 13:18, 13:20, 1:2, 2:3, 31:8,
23:10 13:13, 13:18, 17:2, 17:9, 38:17, 39:2
bulletin 13:20, 16:9, 21:21, 35:13, circumstances
6:6, 6:13, 7:1 16:11, 16:15, 35:18, 37:5, 13:3, 16:12
burden 16:18, 16:19, 38:9, 39:4, cite
11:5 16:21, 17:12, 39:19, 39:20 6:2, 20:13
button 20:15, 20:21, cease cited
11:20 24:9, 24:14, 16:5 5:6, 6:7, 9:21,
25:20, 26:3, censor 10:7, 14:2,
C 27:15, 28:12, 28:22 15:4, 16:15,
c 28:13, 31:19, censorship
37:17 38:5, 40:12
32:6, 33:2, 17:19, 23:5, city
came 33:17, 34:13, 29:1, 36:6
12:11, 38:14 39:1, 39:15,
34:14, 36:5, centered 39:18
campaign 36:20, 37:9, 24:14
20:10 37:16, 38:5,
civil
certain 37:15
can't 38:7, 38:10, 12:15
10:1, 11:4, 38:15, 38:16, cl-
certainly 1:6
11:5, 11:13, 38:17, 38:22, 20:21
22:6, 29:6, 39:3, 39:11, claim
certificate 39:7, 40:5
29:7, 32:13, 39:15, 40:11, 44:1, 45:1
32:17, 35:16, 40:20, 40:21, claimed
certified 39:18
38:8, 41:11, 41:9, 42:7, 45:17
42:6 42:19, 44:8, claiming
cannot certify 39:4
45:10 44:5, 45:4
35:12, 35:14 cases claims
capabilities cet 38:20
5:6, 5:16, 45:3, 45:15,
20:19 5:17, 6:1, 6:2, clear
45:17 15:8, 26:12,
car 6:3, 6:7, 7:3, change
33:20 7:15, 9:21, 32:14, 36:3
10:8, 14:3, 30:20, 31:15, clearly
carome 31:21
4:2, 5:6, 5:16, 7:3, 7:10,
PLANET DEPOS
15:15, 32:6, concept 17:10, 17:13, 15:8, 15:11,
32:10 11:18 18:7, 19:20, 15:18, 15:21,
client concern 20:7, 20:11, 17:1, 23:13,
10:21, 22:11, 31:2, 31:4 21:11, 22:6, 23:16, 23:20,
32:11, 37:2, conduct 22:19, 22:20, 24:9, 24:18,
40:13, 40:18 18:13, 33:10, 26:5, 26:10, 25:8, 25:12,
client's 33:17, 34:22, 26:13, 29:5, 25:15, 26:6,
7:20, 11:22 36:13, 36:14, 31:2, 31:5, 26:15, 26:20,
cnn 40:2 31:20, 34:10, 27:6, 27:9,
11:22, 12:1 conduit 35:20, 35:22, 27:13, 27:19,
code 24:5, 24:8 36:18, 37:10, 28:10, 28:14,
31:16 congress 38:14 28:16, 29:21,
com 12:8, 30:21, contents 30:8, 30:12,
39:1, 39:18, 31:21 34:11 30:15, 31:3,
39:21 congress's context 31:7, 31:22,
come 31:14 10:10, 10:11, 32:3, 32:7,
16:7 congressman 22:10, 31:19 32:9, 32:18,
comes 18:19, 21:7 continue 33:7, 33:11,
28:22 conservative 28:8, 36:19, 33:19, 33:21,
coming 7:21, 8:1 37:2 34:6, 34:16,
31:11 consider contributed 35:5, 35:9,
commend 22:10 24:15 37:18, 37:21,
15:18 consistent contributing 38:8, 38:16,
comments 17:8, 17:11, 8:4, 20:11 39:14, 39:19,
23:21, 28:5, 29:13 conversation 40:3, 42:3,
34:1, 42:14, constituents 12:17, 12:20 42:8, 42:17,
42:15 copy 43:1, 43:13,
36:4 43:15, 44:1
commission constitute 8:9, 39:13,
44:20 42:20, 43:11 courts
22:6 10:9, 11:11,
common constitution correct
25:15, 45:5 11:12
13:21 19:9 cow
commonwealth construction could
30:20, 38:6 24:16, 24:20,
2:9, 44:17 13:22 25:5, 27:2, 28:6
communications consult counsel
16:17, 44:6, crafted
9:16 15:19 25:5
company consumeraffairs 45:8
county create
17:3, 17:7 34:14 10:20, 16:3
compel consumers 1:2, 2:3
couple created
41:4, 41:13, 34:1 24:21
41:21, 42:17 contemplated 8:14, 9:13,
complaint 38:2 creating
31:13 10:18, 17:4,
7:13, 8:2, content course
41:7 22:20
14:16, 14:18, 5:21, 6:11, creation
18:9, 19:4, 8:3, 8:17, 9:4, court
20:22, 34:19, 1:2, 2:3, 2:8, 9:4, 14:12,
9:5, 13:10, 22:6, 22:19,
38:3, 39:9, 40:4 13:13, 13:14, 10:9, 10:16,
component 10:17, 11:7, 26:10
14:7, 14:18, crossed
30:9 15:16, 16:13, 12:18, 15:3,
31:5
PLANET DEPOS
cutler 35:20 described direct
4:3 defame 21:19, 22:9 39:7
D 7:20, 37:2 designed discovery
day defames 13:8, 13:12, 10:22, 32:12,
22:12, 42:10, 19:1 21:21 32:13, 32:20,
42:13, 44:11 defendant destroyed 41:9, 41:11,
dead 3:13, 4:1 5:14 41:16, 41:19,
17:14, 42:16 defendants deter 42:3, 42:18,
dealing 1:8, 18:1, 42:7 13:6 42:21, 43:3
24:12, 27:14 defense develop dismiss
dealt 9:12, 9:18, 15:12, 16:2, 10:1, 10:3,
10:9 9:21, 10:14, 16:8 10:10, 11:5,
decency 10:16, 11:4, developer 15:2, 40:16,
9:17 11:7, 11:13, 14:12, 15:16, 40:17, 41:1,
decide 16:17 15:17, 16:2, 41:18, 42:4
9:7, 10:1, defenses 16:13, 31:20 dispute
36:16 9:22 developing 8:19
decided defined 36:1 disputes
5:11, 11:4, 14:11, 14:12, development 17:19, 18:2
11:13, 12:12, 14:13 9:3, 9:4, 14:8, disputing
12:14, 12:16, defines 14:11, 20:7, 18:3
12:18, 13:10, 14:6 22:7, 26:10, documents
18:14, 27:2, definition 26:13, 26:21, 43:6
37:16 8:21, 14:10, 27:7, 31:6, doing
decides 15:17, 15:19, 35:22 7:11, 10:19,
18:19 17:9 devin 15:12, 15:13,
decisions definitions 1:4, 3:2, 5:3, 21:21, 22:13,
38:14 16:8 8:1, 14:15, 28:3, 29:2,
declared delete 17:21, 18:11, 29:3, 29:8,
16:22 12:15 19:1, 19:17, 29:12, 35:19,
deemed deliberate 19:21, 20:18, 36:5, 36:6
16:4, 30:4 21:20, 28:18, done
13:11, 33:13,
33:15 deliberately 29:6, 36:10 8:13, 20:21,
defamation 29:13 devincow 21:10, 21:12,
demurrer 21:14, 37:1, 42:8
5:12, 8:5, dorr
11:9, 16:20, 10:3, 11:5, 41:10, 42:9,
17:22, 18:15, 15:5 42:12, 42:16, 4:3
19:2, 19:17, denied 43:10 down
20:17, 21:20, 11:3, 40:15 devinnunesmom 6:19, 18:11,
27:15, 28:20, deposition 21:15, 37:1, 18:17, 18:20,
29:17, 30:4, 44:4 41:10 18:22, 19:19,
40:5, 40:7 deprive dictionaries 19:21, 21:16,
defamatory 15:10 15:22 21:17, 25:21,
11:21, 12:15, derogation dictionary 26:1, 33:22,
12:20, 17:6, 13:20 15:18 41:21, 43:2,
18:11, 19:20, describe different 43:8
28:1, 28:21, 6:3, 6:4, 14:4, 31:1, 35:4 E
18:13 digital each
2:7 22:7, 22:8
PLANET DEPOS
east enough 30:20, 30:22 far
2:4, 3:16 17:16, 36:16 exemplified 8:11
editorial entire 19:18 favorite
30:8, 30:10, 5:4, 5:12, 23:6 exist 12:1
30:14, 36:14 entirely 5:10, 5:11 fd
effort 17:10 experts 39:2
16:4 entities 22:18 federal
electronic 24:2 expires 11:12, 37:14,
45:17 entity 44:20 37:17
electronically 5:18, 14:7, explicit few
44:5 39:4 17:19 19:22, 38:20
element especially expressed fifth
8:20, 26:4, 16:4, 17:16, 17:21 3:10
26:7, 26:8 41:2 expressly figure
elements esquire 18:9 41:10
22:4 3:3, 3:8, 3:14, extend file
employed 4:2 41:5, 41:8 10:2, 10:3,
44:7, 45:9 et extent 10:5, 40:21
enacted 1:7 35:8, 37:6, filed
12:8 even 42:8 17:2, 38:3,
encourage 10:14, 11:18, extremely 40:15, 40:21,
21:22 15:6, 38:8 8:12, 14:10, 41:3, 41:5,
encouraging ever 14:14 41:7, 41:13,
29:16, 29:18, 23:1, 23:7 F 41:20, 42:1
29:22, 30:3 every face filtering
end 42:10, 42:13 5:12 13:5
7:7, 14:16, everybody facilitated financial
14:21, 42:16, 16:17, 35:1 39:12 44:8, 45:10
43:17 everyone fact find
enforce 34:7, 34:8, 5:11, 5:22, 38:6, 42:9
36:11 34:18, 34:21 22:16, 25:1, fink
enforced evidence 29:4, 39:22 3:9
36:9 10:15, 11:14, fact-finder first
enforcement 21:1, 21:17, 22:18 8:20, 10:13,
36:8 22:17, 25:10, factors 11:1, 11:2,
engage 25:11, 26:16, 22:15 24:11, 38:17,
16:20, 21:18, 26:17, 32:17 facts 41:18
23:4, 23:5, evolve 14:20, 16:9, fisher
32:20 16:6, 16:7 19:5, 22:8, 1:22, 45:3,
engaged exact 36:7, 36:15 45:15
7:8, 7:9, 20:7, 13:7 factual fit
20:15, 29:4, example 8:5, 9:6 18:17
32:22, 33:4, 6:8 fair flag
39:21 examples 32:19 19:22, 20:1,
engages 21:5 fall 20:2, 20:3
17:19 executive 7:15 focus
engaging 8:8, 8:9, falls 22:4
30:4 30:16, 30:17, 24:22 foia
10:12
PLANET DEPOS
folks give 44:11 herring
30:18 32:9, 41:16, happen 30:11, 30:16
follow 41:19, 42:3 7:21, 28:2, high-profile
16:14 given 29:18 20:4
followed 31:16 happened highlight
19:12 gives 22:11 20:16
followers 32:11 happening history
11:21, 12:2, giving 22:10, 22:12, 14:4
12:4, 28:19, 30:18, 30:19 22:13 homeaway
29:7, 36:10, go happy 39:1, 39:18,
36:12 18:3, 19:16, 43:13 39:21
force 21:4, 25:2, harassing honor
12:9 25:18, 25:19, 13:11 8:7, 9:6, 9:22,
foregoing 28:18, 31:14, harassment 10:8, 11:17,
44:4, 45:4 34:8, 43:10 13:7, 18:13 13:19, 20:8,
foreseeing godaddy harmful 23:15, 25:13,
31:11 5:19, 38:5 18:7 26:3, 38:12,
form going hateful 39:13, 40:15
10:5, 23:4 13:17, 22:13, 18:13 honor's
forum 26:2, 27:3, he'll 39:8
17:7 37:21, 41:16, 43:1 honorable
found 42:2 heading 1:12
16:12, 31:19 gone 29:1 hopefully
fourth 8:11, 42:7 heard 43:9
40:22 good 22:17 horse
franklin 5:2, 13:9, hearing 17:14
3:16 13:10, 13:12, 1:11, 2:1, host
frankly 14:1, 25:18, 38:13, 41:4, 7:4, 8:7, 37:1
16:1 33:14 41:21 hosts
friday goodies hearings 18:6
1:14 12:14 21:9 however
full gradually hecker 17:4
5:17, 32:19 16:7 3:9 hundreds
fun grant held 21:5
18:18 13:3 5:18, 23:9 hurting
function grave henrico 18:10
36:14 18:3 1:2, 1:13, 2:3, hypothetical
G great 2:5 34:17
gate 42:5 here I
14:20
growth 14:22, 15:12, identified
gave 16:5 18:7, 19:12, 6:1, 6:5
34:16 H 23:11, 32:3, identifies
gawker hac 33:1, 34:6, 14:6
5:19, 16:18, 4:2 35:9, 40:13 ignored
16:19, 16:22, hale hereby 18:9
17:2 4:3 44:4, 45:3 illegal
getting hand hereunto 28:11, 34:12
22:2 6:5, 42:21, 44:10
PLANET DEPOS
immune inquiry itself 16:21, 31:20,
12:7, 12:8 14:17, 14:21 12:3, 12:16, 32:1, 36:16
immunity instance 27:14 K
7:6, 9:19, 11:22, 42:9 J kaplan
10:13, 13:3, instantaneous jim 3:9
13:8, 30:19, 12:6 21:7 keeps
31:16, 35:13, instigating job 19:11
35:18 25:11 1:20 kind
impeachment intentional john 5:8, 23:5,
21:9 40:7 1:12 30:5, 32:22,
improper intents joining 40:19
11:3 22:20 20:9 know
inc interaction jordan 8:8, 16:11,
1:7, 3:13, 4:1 15:13 11:8, 21:7 21:16, 22:5,
including interest joshua 24:1, 27:10,
8:7, 8:9 44:8, 45:10 3:8 30:15, 41:12
inconsistent interesting judge knowingly
41:1 38:18 5:2, 5:4, 6:4, 13:16, 29:16
increased interject 7:13, 8:14, knows
27:22 12:16, 12:19 12:5, 13:9, 5:17, 40:22
increasing internet 14:13, 15:20, L
28:1, 29:10 5:20, 7:1, 7:2, 17:8, 18:17,
indicate large
7:5, 8:19, 8:21, 19:4, 20:3, 16:22, 37:6
30:17, 37:8 9:2, 12:18, 20:13, 22:3,
indifferent largely
14:7, 14:9, 22:21, 23:19,
25:19 21:11, 42:12 10:10
24:3, 26:2, last
individual involve 26:17, 27:5,
8:6 6:9 8:13, 37:4,
27:17, 30:3, 38:2, 40:17
individuals involving 30:14, 31:17, law
8:7, 20:4, 11:9 32:2, 32:5,
20:17, 20:20 isp 3:4, 9:9, 9:11,
33:3, 34:22, 10:7, 13:19,
induced 5:20, 24:4, 36:13, 37:4, 13:21, 17:16,
27:20, 28:4 38:20, 39:4, 38:2, 40:10, 19:8, 24:1,
inducing 39:7, 39:12 41:3, 41:17, 28:11, 31:3,
7:18, 7:19, isps 42:5, 42:20, 34:4, 34:12,
17:5 12:9, 13:4, 43:6, 43:9, 37:8
infinite 21:22 43:12 lawsuit
12:14 issue judgment 43:11
inform 9:1, 9:6, 9:15, 32:16, 32:18 leading
42:8 11:9, 20:5, june 21:8
information 20:6, 22:16, 1:14, 44:12, least
8:2, 8:17, 31:18, 31:20, 45:18
31:22 30:18, 40:4
14:2, 14:9, jurisdiction leave
14:18, 18:10, issues 10:11
8:5, 10:4, 6:14, 18:14,
38:13, 45:8 jurisdictional 40:4
injunction 37:5, 43:4 43:4
items left
38:4 jury 6:8, 6:12
injunctive 22:7 5:22, 9:7,
38:4
PLANET DEPOS
legion looking materially monica
40:8 43:6, 43:7 8:3, 8:4, 20:11 39:2, 39:16
legislative lot matter monica's
14:3 29:8 8:18 39:19
lengths loud matz more
19:16 36:3 3:8 25:1, 27:4,
lesson louder maybe 27:5, 27:6,
38:19 29:5 30:20, 31:10, 29:2, 29:3,
let's M 31:11 29:8, 36:16
5:19, 10:7, made mean morning
33:22 28:5 23:22, 25:22, 5:2
liability main 27:2, 30:12 most
24:5 3:5, 9:15 mere 20:21
liable maintains 24:4 motion
12:21, 17:4, 17:7 merely 10:1, 10:2,
25:22 mair 24:20, 29:22 11:2, 11:5,
licensing 21:13, 24:16, merits 15:2, 24:13,
39:17 24:20, 25:5, 19:11 40:16, 40:17,
likened 27:1, 27:20, message 41:4, 41:5,
33:5 29:2, 36:11, 36:1, 36:3 41:8, 41:13,
limitations 36:22 meyer 41:15, 41:17,
31:15 mairs 3:15 41:20, 42:1,
line 23:7 might 42:4
40:10 make 6:3, 21:19, motions
listen 8:11, 16:3, 31:19, 38:19 2:1, 10:10,
42:14 16:4, 37:4 million 15:9, 40:22
listened makes 12:1 motivating
5:4 30:6 millions 37:3
literally making 5:15, 11:21, motive
21:5 18:18, 25:16, 12:3 36:22
litigation 29:5 mind move
10:18, 15:10 managed 18:16, 18:17 6:20, 9:15
little 21:18 minds moved
31:10 manifest 30:19 41:20
lived 16:3 minutes much
5:8 manipulation 5:14 20:10, 27:5,
lives 20:14, 20:16 miriam 29:3, 30:19
43:10 many 15:19 must
liz 6:2, 40:22, missed 19:13
21:13, 23:7, 42:19 38:20 N
27:20, 29:2, marshall mm-hmm nancy
36:11, 36:22 1:12, 41:17 26:6 20:2
llp mass modify narrow
3:9, 4:3 16:20 6:19 41:21, 43:2,
located massachusetts mom 43:8
2:1 38:15, 38:16, 24:16, 24:20, nature
looked 38:22, 39:11 25:5, 27:2, 28:6 28:1
38:13 monetizing
18:7
PLANET DEPOS
ncra notice old originally
45:16 2:7 12:13 35:1
need noticed oldies other
15:6, 39:10, 41:4, 41:20 12:13 5:20, 7:7,
41:9, 41:11 number once 13:17, 15:22,
needs 5:20, 9:18 12:18, 12:19, 25:1, 26:21,
22:17 numerous 12:21 36:7, 38:11,
negative 9:21 one 39:15, 40:12
23:21, 34:1, nunes 5:9, 6:5, 6:10, others
34:11 1:4, 3:2, 5:3, 9:18, 11:22, 7:18, 7:19,
negligence 8:1, 14:15, 12:2, 12:8, 10:12, 17:21,
9:7, 9:8, 9:9, 17:21, 18:11, 12:13, 15:9, 37:2
17:17, 37:9, 19:1, 19:17, 16:16, 17:1, otherwise
38:9 19:21, 20:18, 22:4, 23:20, 17:5, 44:9,
neither 21:20, 25:5, 25:18, 26:22, 45:11
10:17, 44:6, 27:2, 28:18, 31:17, 38:5, ought
45:8 29:6, 32:19, 38:15, 41:18 13:21, 13:22,
networks 36:10 one's 14:16, 14:21,
12:1 O 12:7 15:2, 15:4,
neutral o'hagan ones 17:16
23:10, 23:14, 3:15 42:20 out
23:17, 23:18, oakmont online 5:17, 14:19,
24:2 12:12, 12:13 39:17 16:11, 18:8,
never objections only 18:16, 21:7,
5:7 40:12 14:1, 23:21, 23:9, 35:14,
new objects 28:21, 33:12, 35:16, 38:7,
3:11, 12:11, 40:18 33:15, 34:1, 38:9, 41:10
12:17 obscene 34:2, 34:3, outcome
news 13:11 34:10, 37:18 44:9, 45:11
12:1 obscenity operate over
next 13:6 33:18 16:4
11:15 obviously opine own
ninth 10:4 22:18 10:18, 10:20,
31:8, 39:2 ocasio-cortez opportunity 18:12, 19:16,
none 15:11, 19:10, 19:18, 20:8
18:19, 19:20
28:15 office 32:19, 39:9 P
nope 3:4 opposition pages
42:2 officer 20:9, 30:5 1:21
northwest 44:3 option painful
4:4 oh 32:14 42:13
notarial 22:4 order paragraph
44:11 ohio 8:8, 8:9, 14:19
notary 21:7 30:16, 30:17, pardon
2:8, 44:1, okay 30:20, 30:22, 23:15
44:16, 44:19 41:9, 41:15, parham
25:8, 25:12, 42:2
nothing 27:5, 28:14, 2:4
23:1, 27:13, 39:14
ordinance parity
34:12 39:16 18:18
PLANET DEPOS
part phrases 7:17, 7:19, privilege
9:3, 12:17, 14:13 8:12, 18:21, 11:10
14:8, 26:11, pickering 21:1, 21:2, pro
26:13, 35:22 4:3 23:3, 27:12, 4:2
participate pile 30:13, 33:1, procedural
10:21, 10:22 28:8 35:13, 35:17, 40:12
participating place 35:19, 36:2 procedurally
17:6, 29:20 6:21, 31:14 politicians 11:3
particular places 20:5 procedure
6:20, 7:9, 8:6, 31:1 populate 10:6, 10:18,
11:19, 14:5, plaintiff 23:6 10:20, 19:6,
14:13, 16:10, 1:5, 3:2, 11:6, port 24:10, 37:15
17:12, 17:22, 17:12 38:15, 38:22, proceed
20:17, 38:6, platform 39:11 42:6
40:10 5:8, 5:13, portion proceeding
particularity 8:22, 11:19, 1:11, 5:1, 17:15, 40:13,
9:10 12:5, 14:2, 43:17 40:19
parties 16:20, 25:6, position proceedings
18:10, 40:1, 27:18, 27:21, 22:22 24:12, 44:5,
44:7, 45:9 27:22, 28:2, positive 45:5, 45:6
party 28:5, 28:9, 23:22 prodigy
26:5 30:7, 33:21, post 12:14
pass 33:22, 34:2, 17:5, 27:20, produce
12:22 34:3 28:6, 29:2, 16:3
passed play 29:9, 42:15 production
39:16 31:13 posted 43:5
passive plea 19:20, 19:21, professional
7:1, 7:2, 7:5, 10:5 24:19, 30:1, 45:16
24:4, 24:8 pleading 30:3, 35:21, promote
patrick 32:7, 32:8 36:19 7:12, 13:5,
4:2 plenty posting 16:5, 19:2,
pay 5:16, 5:17, 17:4, 17:6 19:17, 20:17,
42:9, 42:11 5:22 posts 23:3, 23:4
pelosi point 25:6 promoting
20:2 10:13, 11:1, preparing 7:9, 7:17,
pennsylvania 11:2, 11:15, 38:12 21:1, 27:12,
4:4 18:8, 21:16, presentation 28:7, 29:14,
people 21:18, 26:3, 5:5 29:15, 35:20
19:10, 28:8, 37:4, 38:6, president proposition
28:21, 42:15 38:11 8:10, 20:1 38:21, 39:4
person pointed pretty propositions
14:7, 18:18, 18:16 20:10 8:15
29:9 points prevent protect
person's 9:14, 38:3 33:8 13:5, 13:12,
12:6 policies prevents 24:7
personal 36:21 33:12 protection
10:11 political primary 39:5
phrase 7:8, 7:12, 36:22 protective
6:16 41:15, 42:2
PLANET DEPOS
protests 14:4, 17:21, really represent
35:15 19:2, 19:3 6:3, 10:19, 5:3
prove purposes 20:13, 23:10 republican-based
9:11, 9:12, 22:20, 37:19 realm 34:3
10:16, 11:6, pursuant 31:5 republicans
32:12, 32:13, 2:7 reasons 7:22, 8:1, 21:9
32:17 push 6:10 republish
provide 11:20 receive 11:20
6:16, 8:22, put 13:21 republisher
13:8, 27:18, 10:15, 15:15, recognized 12:22
27:22, 37:16 22:9, 24:16, 10:6 reputation
provided 24:21, 25:6, recognizes 5:14, 12:7
5:13, 14:9, 27:3, 31:13, 40:6 request
21:12, 21:13 31:15, 36:15 record 41:22, 43:5
provider Q 15:12, 45:5 requested
5:20, 5:21, qualified recorded 5:1, 43:17
6:11, 7:2, 7:3, 9:20, 11:9 44:6, 45:5 required
7:5, 8:3, 8:17, question recording 39:17
8:19, 8:21, 5:18, 5:21, 45:7 requirement
12:19, 14:7, 5:22, 8:16, 9:5, red 9:8, 9:10, 24:1
14:19, 17:10, 16:10 30:11, 30:15 reshaping
17:13, 21:11, questions reduce 29:4
37:10 43:13 33:22 respect
providers quite registered 36:17, 42:5
38:14 16:1 45:16 respectfully
provides quote registration 22:21
19:10 14:3 44:19 respond
providing quoted related 29:6, 42:18
28:5 12:10 21:9, 43:4, responded
public 44:7, 45:9 41:14
2:8, 21:12, R
raise relating response
21:13, 44:1, 42:12 12:11, 17:3
44:16 38:12
raises relief responses
publication 38:5 43:6, 43:7
29:11 9:19
ran remaining responsible
publications 42:18 9:3, 14:8,
5:15 41:8
rather removal 14:10, 26:9,
published 13:14 26:12, 26:18,
42:10, 42:11 13:4
reach remove 36:18
publisher 13:10, 13:15, restricted
33:16 14:14
reached 14:1 39:16
punish removed returned
13:6 42:16
read 13:13 16:21
pure repeat review
6:13, 6:22 5:5, 5:6, 31:7,
42:13 15:6, 37:6 6:15, 6:17,
purporting reporter 6:18, 15:1, 37:8
34:7 reading
40:14 2:8, 44:1, richmond
purpose 45:16 3:17
13:2, 13:4,
PLANET DEPOS
right 33:14 22:1 shows
14:19, 20:6, same self-regulating 20:10
24:9, 24:11, 16:1 22:1 shut
25:7, 28:16, santa seminal 21:16, 21:17
30:9, 32:11, 39:2, 39:16, 16:16 side
32:12, 32:18, 39:18 sense 6:8, 6:12,
35:10, 43:15 sat 5:9 12:21, 23:2
road 25:4 serve signature-llc0g
2:4 say 41:6, 41:11, 44:14
robertson 5:19, 6:8, 43:11 signature-yossq
2:7, 44:3, 9:22, 12:7, served 45:13
44:16 15:22, 22:4, 43:3 simple
room 24:4, 24:6, service 15:18, 25:17
25:4, 27:1 28:10, 29:12, 5:20, 7:2, 7:5, sir
routinely 32:19, 34:9 8:19, 8:21, 24:17
24:3 saying 12:19, 18:12, site
rpr 24:18, 24:22, 20:9, 36:8, 36:9 23:20
1:22, 45:3, 34:17, 35:8, services sits
45:15, 45:16 42:2 19:19 6:21
rubric says set sitting
29:1 7:11, 7:13, 34:9, 34:15, 27:1, 29:17
rule 23:13, 25:16, 34:17, 40:20, situation
19:8, 19:12, 30:22, 31:1, 44:10 7:20, 16:19
37:17, 40:14, 32:21, 38:8 seyfarth solicited
41:2 scenario 3:14 23:21
ruled 25:17 shadow-ban some
41:18 seal 28:18, 28:19 6:7, 10:9,
rules 44:11 shadow-banned 18:5, 21:16,
19:12, 37:15, seattle 17:20, 18:2, 21:18, 30:18,
41:2, 41:17, 35:15 18:4 31:15, 35:22,
42:3 second shadow-banning 36:17, 37:19,
S 26:4, 26:7, 21:6, 21:8, 40:12, 43:3
safe 42:1 22:5, 23:6, somebody
19:7, 19:9 section 29:8, 32:21 6:14, 11:20,
said 31:16 shands 16:12, 17:10
7:3, 11:8, see 11:8 somehow
16:10, 17:1, 28:21, 29:7, shifted 24:15, 25:3
17:3, 25:20, 35:16, 37:12 11:6 someone
26:17, 31:9, seems short-circuit 25:4
31:12, 33:7, 8:15 10:17, 15:9 something
36:7, 39:20, sees should 16:2
41:15, 44:5, 18:17 11:2, 23:11, sometimes
45:6 selective 40:14, 40:20 42:14
samaritan 36:8 shouldn't sorry
13:10, 13:12 selectively 40:21 16:6
samaritans 18:14 show sound
13:9, 14:1, self-regulate 21:1, 21:17, 19:7, 19:9
12:9, 21:22, 23:16 source
15:20
PLANET DEPOS
speaker still supreme 36:8, 36:9
33:16 22:12, 22:13, 10:9, 11:7, th
specifically 32:15, 35:18, 11:11, 15:3, 44:11
17:18 41:19 15:8, 15:10, thank
spectrum stop 15:21 43:16
6:4, 6:9, 6:12, 23:11 sure themselves
7:7, 7:14, 7:16, stopped 10:6, 15:6, 12:10, 23:9
16:14 40:16 40:16, 43:1 therefore
square stratton T 30:20
21:12, 21:13 12:12, 12:13 take thing
squelch street 6:18, 12:21, 28:21
30:5 3:5, 3:16, 18:11, 18:17, things
stage 35:17 18:20, 18:22, 13:17, 24:19,
11:13, 14:17, strict 19:19, 19:21, 29:7
17:15, 24:12, 13:21 23:2, 25:21, think
32:5, 37:10, stuff 25:22 8:15, 11:8,
40:11 24:10 taken 15:20, 15:22,
stalking submit 15:15, 36:22, 25:3, 25:13,
13:7, 13:11 9:5, 13:19, 44:4 31:8, 31:17,
stance 20:7, 22:21 takes 32:15, 37:5,
21:6 submitted 36:13 37:14, 37:22,
stand 8:8, 30:16 talk 38:6, 38:17,
38:21, 39:3 substantially 11:16, 16:13, 41:1, 42:5,
standard 29:19 20:14, 26:2, 43:12
15:1, 15:4, substantively 37:21, 40:8 thinks
15:6, 15:7 29:19 talked 32:16
start sued 20:12 third
8:14, 9:13 38:8 talking 18:10, 26:5,
state suggested 26:4 26:8, 40:1,
10:9 30:9 talks 40:22
statement suggests 8:20, 16:11 three
11:21, 17:7 15:3 target 10:8
statements suit 20:20 through
28:22 18:21 targeting 14:9
states suite 7:22, 20:18, time
8:10, 20:2 3:5, 3:10, 3:16 20:19 5:7, 15:21,
statute summary taught 16:4, 18:5,
14:5, 14:6, 32:15, 32:18 38:19 21:16, 21:18,
26:11, 39:19 superior technologies 41:6, 41:8
stay 38:16 13:5 today
13:16 superpac tell 22:14
stays 33:6 42:15 together
6:18 superpacs term 22:9, 22:15,
step 36:2 6:4, 6:6 36:15
8:18 support terms told
steve 14:21, 37:13 13:22, 18:12, 26:15
5:2 supporting 19:18, 20:8, tort
steven 45:7 40:6, 40:7,
3:3, 3:4
PLANET DEPOS
40:8 10:17, 11:16, 16:12, 17:9, viewpoints
touch 11:17, 12:2, 17:15, 28:11, 7:12, 8:11,
9:15 12:3, 12:9, 28:22, 34:4, 8:12
traffic 13:15, 13:16, 34:12, 35:6, violate
28:1 14:18, 15:12, 37:17, 38:9 39:20
trafficking 15:13, 17:13, understand violated
13:6 17:18, 17:19, 20:4, 27:11, 39:19
transactions 17:20, 18:1, 27:19, 31:7, virginia
39:17, 39:22 18:2, 18:3, 34:16, 35:11, 1:13, 2:5, 2:9,
transcribed 18:6, 18:8, 37:20 3:6, 3:17, 9:9,
1:22, 45:6 18:9, 18:12, unequivocally 9:11, 10:7,
transcriber 18:14, 18:17, 32:6 10:8, 11:7,
45:1, 45:17 18:19, 19:15, unfold 11:11, 13:19,
transcript 19:16, 20:6, 16:6, 16:7 15:3, 15:8,
45:4 20:14, 20:21, unique 15:20, 17:15,
trespass 21:10, 21:11, 5:9 37:8, 40:5,
39:12 21:22, 23:1, united 41:2, 44:17
trial 23:8, 24:7, 8:10, 20:1 visible
15:11, 19:10, 24:21, 25:3, unlawful 16:3
40:20 25:4, 25:10, 40:1 volume
true 26:22, 27:1, unlicensed 29:11
19:5, 19:6, 27:9, 27:11, 39:21 vs
19:14, 37:11, 31:2, 31:4, unprecedented 11:8, 39:1
37:12, 45:4 31:19, 34:14, 21:19, 21:20 W
truly 34:21, 35:12, until
36:4, 36:21, want
19:17 5:11, 41:17, 6:8, 7:14,
37:10, 38:4, 42:3
trump 38:7, 38:9, 8:14, 11:15,
21:3 uploaded 11:16, 19:5,
40:13, 40:21, 26:5
try 41:6, 41:14, 23:2, 23:4,
42:9 42:10, 42:17,
use 23:5, 23:21,
trying 42:21, 43:3 6:3, 6:6, 6:7, 34:3, 34:10,
10:20 twitter's 23:8, 37:16, 35:2, 35:4,
tune 37:18, 37:22 35:16, 37:4,
8:6, 18:12, user-generated
5:14 21:5, 30:6, 37:6, 37:7,
tweet 33:2, 33:21, 13:13, 13:14 39:7, 39:8
26:21, 27:3, 34:2, 37:3 uses wanted
27:7, 27:14, two 31:1 34:1, 38:11
29:3, 29:9, 8:13, 21:14, using wants
35:1, 35:2 38:14, 38:21, 28:9 6:2, 23:2,
tweets 39:3, 42:6 V 37:15, 37:18,
12:15, 20:1, type verdict 37:22
26:18, 27:16, 6:17 16:22 washington
34:3 U vice 4:5
twitter 4:2 way
1:7, 3:13, 4:1, under 33:18, 34:8,
9:9, 9:10, viewpoint
5:9, 5:19, 6:10, 7:9, 7:19, 40:13, 40:19
7:11, 8:10, 13:3, 13:19, we'll
23:3, 23:7
8:16, 10:15, 18:20, 35:1
PLANET DEPOS
we're wild 26:3, 37:16 202
19:7, 24:11, 31:9, 31:12 . 4:6
27:14, 32:3, wilmer .3 2020
32:21, 32:22, 4:3 39:2 1:14, 38:22,
33:17, 37:21, wisdom 0 44:12, 45:18
40:18, 40:19, 12:15 2024
41:16 within 00 44:20
website 7:15 1:6 22903
6:21, 7:4, without 1 3:6
7:17, 7:18, 11:14, 16:9 10118 230
7:22, 17:2, witness 3:11 24:22, 30:9,
23:7, 23:10, 44:10 102 30:18, 31:13,
33:3, 35:21, word 3:5 31:15, 33:7,
36:19 14:10, 14:11, 1028822 33:12, 35:6
webster 14:12, 31:1 39:1 23219
15:19 wordage 11 3:17
weeks 13:7 43:7, 43:8, 23228
19:22 words 44:20 2:5
well-established 26:22 1148 25
15:5, 15:7 worse 45:17 5:10
well-known 22:2 12 3
8:12 wouldn't 1:14, 37:17, 3
went 27:10, 34:11, 44:11 32:15
16:21 35:9 14 30
west wreckage 31:1 44:20
3:5, 31:9, 12:6 16 300
31:12 written 45:18 3:5
westlaw 37:7 1715 303601
39:1 wrong 1:6 1:20
whatever 35:8, 35:12 18 350
23:1, 23:2, Y 32:15 3:10
23:3, 35:1, 35:4 180 3:8
whereof yeah
30:10, 36:17 35:3 41:2
44:10 1875 3:8(b
wherever year
41:7, 41:8 4:4 40:14
35:16 19
whether years 4
5:10, 8:13 1:6
5:18, 5:21, 1996 40
8:16, 9:1, 9:2, yelp 35:2
6:7, 6:14, 11:17, 12:9
9:19, 9:20, 2 403
20:6, 24:11, 6:15, 6:17, 3:18
25:18, 26:9, 6:18, 6:19, 6:20 20006 411
31:18, 31:21, york 4:5 3:16
31:22 3:11, 12:11, 2014 4301
whole 12:17 5:11 2:4
8:7, 9:3, 14:8, yourself 2019 44
16:14, 26:11, 12:19 39:3, 41:14 12:1
26:12, 37:1 Z
zeran
5:10, 25:20,
PLANET DEPOS
45
1:21
5
500
3:16
6
6000
4:6
663
4:6
676
39:2
7
7110
3:10
7137
3:18
7858471
44:19
8
804
3:18
9
918
39:2
PLANET DEPOS

Transcript of Hearing Portion: Date: Case

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Transcript of Hearing Portion: Date: Case

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Transcript of Hearing Portion

Date: June 12, 2020

WORLDWIDE COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION TECHNOLOGY

1 Hearing on Motions located at:

1 ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT, TWITTER, INC.:

1 (Begin requested portion.)

1 Because what the cases have identified -- and

1 bulletin board. That's the passive internet

1 conservative republicans, like it has Devin Nunes,

1 The issue in this case is whether or not

1 can't decide them on a motion to dismiss.

1 that's the first point.

1 favorite news networks, CNN has 44 million

1 does apply only to good samaritans who remove

1 If there is a standard of review that

1 same, quite frankly.

1 But this is what the Court said in one of

1 defendants. We have alleged -- and Twitter

1 defames Devin Nunes? No. Because their agenda --

1 will flag tweets by the President of the United

1 evidence will show -- promoting a political agenda.

1 self-regulate. They're not self-regulating.

1 nothing anyone can ever -- Twitter can do whatever

1 know of any requirement in the law for these

1 other -- that there's more to it than the fact that

1 Twitter was sitting in the room with Ms. Mair,

1 defamatory nature of this by increasing the traffic

1 the heading or the rubric of censorship. They're

1 says, in 14 different places, it uses the word

1 you can get to the jury.

1 of political action -- actionism here.

1 only wanted negative comments about consumers.

1 originally was "we'll let everybody tweet whatever

1 it's developing the message. And that's what

1 and DevinCow and DevinNunesMom and a whole host of

1 Westlaw 1028822, and the Homeaway.com vs. City of

1 aiding and abetting third parties in that unlawful

1 dismiss. I think that approach is inconsistent

1 And they filed a second motion for

1 THE COURT: Sure. He'll get it.

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER - NOTARY PUBLIC

Potrebbero piacerti anche