John Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

AMY J. ROLOFF and MATTHEW J. ROLOFF Plaintiffs,

Case No. 10-cv-1487-MO

vs. WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, JOHN WHEELER and JAY WINCHESTER, Defendants.

JOHN DOE'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

John Doe submits the following facts and points and authorities in response to Plaintiffs' Response to John Doe's Motion to Quash Subpoena.

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOHN DOE'S MOTION TO QUASH Plaintiffs have served a subpoena that is patently overbroad and seeks information that is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. Spiritswander acts as a newsgathering entity, and the contributors to the website are clearly within their First Amendment rights when they submit statements anonymously. Further, the Plaintiffs are television personalities and without a doubt public figures. The Plaintiffs request is brazen and inconsistent with clear case law in the Ninth Circuit. 1. Motion to Quash is not signed with John Doe's real name, address and telephone

number because John Doe is arguing that the motion to obtain the above information is unlawful. Signing the Motion to Quash reveals identifying information that is in part what the Plaintiffs are seeking. Plaintiffs and their counsel state that it is required information so that responsive documents can be served. The email address spiritswander@gmail.com that the Plaintiffs are seeking information regarding (which demonstrates that Plaintiffs and their counsel was well aware of it) is available as a means of communication when necessary. Plaintiffs and their counsel were very well aware of the spiritswander@gmail.com email address. Google Inc. used the spiritswander@gmail.com email address to successfully communicate with John Doe. 2. Plaintiffs and their counsel claim that John Doe's Motion to Quash should be

stricken because the Motion is not signed by an attorney. It would be a chilling indictment on the United States Justice system if John Doe's Motion was stricken for that reason. It would essentially declare that only individuals with the financial resources available to afford official legal representation have the ability to participate in the legal system and defend their constitutional rights against people with the money available to hire an attorney that seek the personal and private information of others in unrelated matters.

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

3.

Importantly, it is well-established law in the Ninth Circuit that persons may

proceed as John Does in motions to quash subpoenas seeking their identities, when a subpoena seeks to reveal the identity of an anonymous speaker who was engaging in First Amendment activity. In fact, Plaintiffs counsel even cites a Ninth Circuit case where the trial court and appellate court permitted the anonymous speaker to proceed anonymously both at the trial court and on appeal. See reference to In Re Anonymous Speakers, No. 09-71625, 661 F.3d 1168 (Jan 7, 2011), on page 5 of Plaintiffs opposition. 4. I, John Doe, am a Third Party blogger with no association to this case. I believe I

was unlawfully subpoenaed and targeted by the Plaintiffs out of a pure dislike on behalf of the public figure Roloffs because they dislike the content and opinions expressed on the Blog about the Roloff family and their television show. I was forced to spend a considerable amount of time over the holidays responding to this subpoena that abuses subpoena powers relating to a case that I have no involvement in. I followed all the proper channels and met all stated deadlines in filing the Motion to Quash to protect my rights and the rights of all persons that have submitted a comment on the Blog. 5. There is no requirement by law to seek out the lawyer representing the person

issuing the subpoena to "see if things could be worked out". The Plaintiffs made no effort at all to contact me before filing a motion to subpoena. The Plaintiffs attorney made no effort to contact me directly before filing a motion to subpoena. Yet I cannot file a motion to quash without first contacting the Plaintiffs attorney? The Plaintiffs current point of contention, the comments about the ark "toppling over," could have been cleared up with a simple email as the article posted on the blog that contained that terminology was a statement intended for the public domain written by Washington County

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

employee Anne H. Madden (See Exhibit 1). The Plaintiffs and their counsel made no such request. Instead they served Google Inc. with a subpoena for my personal information and the identities of every person who has commented on the Blog since the inception of the Blog, four years ago. The public figure Roloffs clearly have the ulterior motive of identifying all of the anonymous speakers who have criticized them over the years and retaliating. The Roloffs are highly vindictive people (as detailed below), and I have significant fears of retribution if my identity is revealed. 6. Ross Day's response to Motion to Quash states that John Doe did not take "5

minutes out of his/her day" to email Plaintiffs regarding Motion to Quash and that the situation could have been resolved without involving the Court. That is misleading and disingenuous considering that Plaintiffs and their Counsel never once emailed John Doe to inform Doe that they were seeking information about the Blog or the email address spirtswander@gmail.com. John Doe was only notified that there was a subpoena by Google on Dec 8, 2011. Google then emailed an attachment on Dec 9, 2011 containing the subpoena informing John Doe that Google would comply with the Subpoena unless a Motion to Quash was filed by December 28, 2011 . John Doe did file the Motion to Quash and met the deadline that was outlined. Plaintiffs and their counsel did not attempt to contact John Doe to resolve this matter that they initiated, yet now are claiming it is the fault of John Doe that the Court is involved in this process. Plaintiffs and their counsel could have taken "5 minutes out of their day" to notify me via my email spiritswander@gmail.com that they were seeking information about my email and my blog. They did not do that and it was not until Google Inc. informed me that they had been served with a subpoena requesting my information that I had any idea of what was happening. The only correspondence John Doe has ever received from the Plaintiffs and their counsel was on Jan 12,

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

2012 when they emailed a copy of the Response to Motion to Quash. The Plaintiffs and their counsel are clearly aware of the Blog and there is a contact email posted there. The Plaintiffs and their counsel made no effort to attempt to contact me with their concerns. They went directly to the subpoena process and involved the Court. Although not entirely clear, there is some suggestion in Matt Roloff's online comments on Twitter that he was preparing subpoena motions of Google Inc. in September of 2011 (see Exhibit 2). I do not understand how I am at fault for "not taking five minutes out of my day" when Plaintiffs and their counsel also didn't take five minutes out of their day to contact me via email, but did take five minutes to brag on Twitter about how serving subpoenas to Google was the "funnest thing" he "has ever done in life". 7. The Motion to Quash was filed by the Court and stamped on December 23, 2011,

not on December 29, 2011 as erroneously stated in the Response to Motion to Quash. This is significant because Google had issued a deadline of December 28, 2011. 8. John Doe is a Third Party in this case and the Plaintiffs have still failed to

demonstrate that the requested information is relevant to the case against Washington County and have failed to demonstrate why their desire for all of the information requested should outweigh the privacy rights of hundreds or thousands of other people that have commented on the Spiritswander Blog. John Doe followed the proper procedures in responding to the notice from Google that they had received a subpoena requesting John Doe's personal and private information. Plaintiffs allege that John Doe is "playing games" with the discovery process. It should be noted, that Plaintiff Matthew J. Roloff made a post on his known Twitter account via his known Facebook account, stating that the act of subpoenaing Google is "probably the funnest thing" he "has ever done in life" (See Exhibit 2). This alone raises great concerns that Plaintiff Matt Roloff is abusing this process, by issuing patently overbroad subpoena requests.

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

9.

The Roloffs are not politicians, but they are celebrities television stars, authors

of multiple books, they sell autographed merchandise, personalized tours and are paid public speakers. They are public figures. The Blog strives to be an entertainment and news source for people interested in these celebrities. John Doe occasionally expresses personal opinion on some of the topics and allows readers to express their own opinions as well. Among the issues and opinions expressed, John Doe expressed a personal opinion that it was wrong for the Plaintiffs son, Jeremy J. Roloff, to use derogatory and hurtful racial and homophobic slurs while communicating online (see Exhibit 3). This occurred on Myspace from 2005 2007 and was noted publicly in the National Enquirer after the comments were seen online by many fans of the television show Little People, Big World. Plaintiff Matthew J. Roloff vaguely conceded that it was true when he released a statement on the Discovery.com website describing it as "One of my children's inappropriate language while communicating online" and then Matt Roloff stated that he wanted people to only focus on the good his family does. John Doe has stated that it is Doe's opinion that the use of the slurs and the reaction from the Roloff family was disappointing and hypocritical considering one of the admirable things the Roloffs had done with their television show fame was to promote the message that derogatory words towards minority groups are hurtful. This issue seemingly has upset the Plaintiffs and was what prompted their negative feelings towards the Spiritswander Blog. John Doe and all that have contributed comments to the Blog have a First Amendment right to express their opinions on such subjects regarding public figures without fear of being subpoenaed and losing their right to privacy. 10. The Plaintiffs and their counsel are attempting to claim that the Blog is not

centered upon religious or political speech, thus all those who have participated shouldn't be entitled to their constitutional rights and have their privacy protected. While some content on the

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

blog discusses issues that Plaintiffs state such as the television show, their pumpkin business and such, in the 4 year history of the Blog, topics are wide ranging. The Roloffs are the focal point of topics, but discussions have often focused on many issues. When the Roloffs held fundraisers for certain Oregon politicians, people began expressing their opinion on politicians and certain political affiliations and beliefs. When Matt Roloff announced that his son Jeremy Roloff was a volunteer usher at a church in Portland, named the church and said that his son loved the church, it began lively and passionate discussions about religion and the church's stance on a variety of issues such as homosexuality. Other issues, such as being the victim of bullying, have been discussed. Some individuals shared personal life stories and that of their loved ones and family members. Everyone that commented had no reasonable expectation when they were participating in such discussions that the Roloffs might eventually be granted their private and personal identifying information. The Roloffs request for this subpoena is unlawful because it strips hundreds of persons of their right to privacy while never really even being made aware that two individuals Matt and Amy Roloff are attempting to gain their personal and private details as well as the personal and private information of hundreds or thousands of others. 11. In order for the Roloffs to prevail and obtain the private information sought in the

subpoena, the Roloffs must demonstrate that their need for discovery outweighs the alleged harms that may result. The Roloffs have failed to demonstrate that this is the case. The Plaintiffs entire argument for why they should receive the requested information is baseless when examined. Plaintiffs are attempting to claim that statements made on the Blog are similar to statements made by Washington County officials in court proceedings and that is why the Roloffs should be granted all personal and private identifying information about John Doe and all that have ever commented on the Blog. It is baseless because the item that they are citing as

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

sounding similar to Washington County officials is clearly labelled as a public statement released by Washington County's Communication Coordinator. There is no need to trample on the rights of privacy of everyone that has commented on the Blog when that Blog article centered around a public statement from Washington County explaining its position on the incident. No discovery process is needed to know that portion of that one article on the Blog is a public statement released by Washington County. 12. The Plaintiffs request is as unlawful and as outrageous as if Defendants sought

all the personal, private identifying information of all 58,000 + fans on Matt Roloff's Official Facebook Fan page because some comments echo Matt Roloff's opinion on the case. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES The Spiritswander Blog attempts to be a fair and balanced site about the Roloffs and the Little People, Big World television show. Sometimes readers will discover news stories and information and submit it to Spiritswander for publishing if deemed to be interesting, informative, and accurate. Following the airing of the episode that depicted the incident between the Roloffs and Washington County Inspector, Matt Roloff made postings on his Facebook page about the incident. After he filed the current lawsuit, Matt Roloff also did interviews with other news outlets about the case. The Spiritswander Blog linked that article so our readers could see Matt Roloff's statements about the case. Spiritswander's readers had a chance to hear the Roloffs side of the incident. An email was then sent to Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation via their website's standard "Contact Us" form simply commenting on the reaction of fans to the episode, how Washington County was depicted and Matt Roloff's own public postings about the incident.

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

The email asked if Washington County had any response they would like to share. The communications Coordinator, Anne Madden, responded via email. It was then asked of Washington County Coordinator, Anne Madden, in the email, with no mention specifically of the Spiritswander blog, if the sender had permission to share Washington County's response publicly on a site that was discussing the issue? Ms. Madden stated that permission was granted to share the content of the email publicly. There was never any question that this was a media statement from Washington County (See Exhibit 1). It is clear that Spiritswander was acting as a news gathering entity and should be treated as such by the Court. That email response was the basis of the article that appeared on the Spiritswander Blog (See Exhibit 4). http://spiritswander.blogspot.com/2010/11/washington-county-department-of-land.html In our role as a news source of happenings involving celebrities, the Roloff Family and Little People, Big World, we had given our readers the chance to hear the Roloffs explanation via Matt Roloff's Facebook postings. There was now a statement from Washington County that they intended to be public explaining their stance. In Spiritswander's attempt to be fair to all parties involved and to keep our readers informed of all sides, we published the above item. This information is stated in the article. It is a statement that was intended to be public from Washington County's PR/Communications Department although they did not know the destination for it was spiritswander.blogspot.com (only referred to in email as "a public forum where people were discussing the incident"). If it is similar to arguments or statements made in the case, this is the very logical and obvious explanation. As stated in the article, the wording about the ark "possibly toppling over and hurting someone" came from Washington County's Communication Coordinator in the email. The Plaintiffs do not require John Doe's personal

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

information and that of all who have submitted comments to the Blog to know that the statement in that article about the case came from Washington County. It is clearly labelled "Washington County's Response To Incident Between Inspector and Amy Roloff" (See Exhibit 4). If a Spiritswander reader ("if" because the footnote stated in the Plaintiffs Response and the Declaration is incorrect. There is no comment from a "Brandon" on Page 6 of Exhibit 3 that refers to the ark toppling over) such as "Brandon" used the same language about the ark toppling over, it is simply because the commenter read it in the article which as stated was a public release from Washington County that was intended for public consumption. Our visitors had the chance to read Washington County's response and form their own opinions, the same as people were forming their own opinions after reading Matt Roloff's thoughts on the incident. Counsel for the Plaintiffs argue that "Brandon" was demonstrating special knowledge of the case that were not made public. That simply is not true. "Brandon" was simply commenting on what was already in the article the public statement released by Washington County's Communications Coordinator. Washington County released the terminology of the ark "toppling over" almost a year before the deposition the Plaintiffs counsel is citing. Plaintiffs and their counsel also cite an anonymous commenter as posting about procedures used by Washington County officials to inspect nuisances and counsel is apparently suggesting that the comment is from a Washington County employee related to the case. Information about Washington County procedures is found on a public website as the anonymous commenter posted the link (See Exhibit 5). How is looking up publicly available information on a public website showing that one has insider knowledge of the case? Information about the procedures used by Washington County to investigate nuisances can be found on this public website. This is information that is made freely available on a public website. The

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

10

Plaintiffs and their counsel are suggesting that anyone who shows any curiosity about the law after seeing a television show and reading news articles about the case, can't just be curious, they must be employees of Washington County? No insider knowledge is needed to access this website. It is simply unreasonable for the Plaintiffs to trample on the privacy rights of hundreds, perhaps thousands of individuals' rights simply because they are now stating that they want to know if a few Washington County individuals have posted anonymous comments to public websites, particularly when there is no evidence that anyone related to the case has posted anonymously at all. Similar discussions of the Roloffs and their court case have taken place on TelevisionWithoutPity.com. Is there also a subpoena for TelevisionWithoutPity.com to reveal the name and identifying information of every anonymous poster since their site's inception to see if Washington County employees may have posted? As it stands, Plaintiffs and their counsel want the identity of John Doe and every poster on the Blog since its inception because one poster repeated "the ark toppling over" after reading the phrase in an article that is clearly called "Washington County Department of Land Use' Response to Incident Between Building Inspector and Amy Roloff. Washington County Communications Coordinator Anne H Madden used the terminology in a freely given media article. Plaintiffs and their counsel are attempting to suggest that anyone who uses that terminology must secretly be a Washington County employee when in fact posters like "Brandon" are simply using the same terms Washington County did in a media release. For doing that, posters like Brandon are no longer accorded privacy? Because they are commenting on a news article released by Washington County means they could be Washington County employees? The incident in question was aired on a nationally available cable channel

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

11

and can be purchased for viewing on a variety of sites. The Roloffs did several interviews about the court case, but are attempting to argue that by one poster repeating a phrase used in a public statement by Washington County for public media consumption, that all posters and the owner of the Blog should have their identities released to the Roloffs so the Roloffs can possibly discover whether a Washington County employee ever commented on the case? Furthermore, Plaintiffs have failed to show that those comments that they cite demonstrate insider knowledge. The article features a public statement clearly identified as Washington County's Response to the incident. There is no knowledge contained in the

comments on the blog that cannot be gleaned from either Washington County's statement, from the public interviews and statements from the Roloffs themselves or from the publicly aired episode of Little People, Big World on television. The website the anonymous poster cited is a publicly available website about Oregon's municipal codes. Publicly available information is not insider information. Plaintiffs now appear to be arguing that because they want to discover if one or two Washington County employees have ever posted an anonymous comment on the Spiritswander Blog out of literally tens of thousands of comments, because of one article that is clearly stated as a media article coming from Washington County, that Matt and Amy Roloff should be granted the private information of perhaps thousands of people. In the 4 year history of the blog, there are approximately 700 articles, items and blog entries, many of which contain hundreds of comments. It is an unreasonable and outrageous request that shows a blatant disregard for the privacy of all others that have commented by giving the Plaintiffs access to everyone else's personal and private information. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate why they need such broad and intrusive identifying information such as the email address spiritswander@gmail.com when

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

12

their whole argument now appears to be centered on determining if a Washington County Employee has ever submitted an anonymous comment to the public blog

spiritswander.blogspot.com. Furthermore, the defendants and their counsel erroneously state that John Doe wrote about a desire to have a "face-to-face" interview with Amy Roloff. Nowhere in the article is the term "face-to-face" interview ever mentioned. That the Plaintiffs and their counsel claim that a "face-to-face" interview was proposed is false. Please refer to the cited article as reference. http://spiritswander.blogspot.com/2011/12/chris-cardamone-former-little-people.html (Exhibit 6) The interview with Amy Roloff centers around an email the Blog received before the summer of 2010 (which in itself demonstrates that it is possible to contact John Doe via email and that Amy Roloff would be aware of that). It was from a representative of the "Amy Roloff Charity Foundation" (ARCF) who apparently was acting on his own accord in seeking websites that would be interested in promoting Amy Roloff's Charity event. It is important to note that many individuals have the opinion that the Spiritswander blog is a fair and objective Blog about these Public Figures, the Roloff family, and are unaware that the Roloffs themselves are ultra sensitive about the criticism they sometimes receive or that their actions and words are occasionally questioned by the Spiritswander Blog or its readers that choose to comment or participate in discussion. The representative of ARCF proposed a partnership with between ARCF and Spiritswander. They proposed a "banner/logo" exchange if Spiritswander would promote The Amy Roloff Celebrity Cruise on Oasis of the Seas sponsored by Royal Caribbean which was to take place in the summer of 2010. The representative also stated the deal would include in an interview with Amy Roloff. //

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

13

Spiritswander was very surprised to receive the request, but we are always willing to help promote charity and if Amy Roloff was willing to address the issues discussed on the Blog, we were not going to dismiss it. In speaking to other bloggers that have interviewed the Roloffs, interviews with bloggers are often arranged for the Roloffs in this manner -- through their representatives contacting Internet Bloggers. I have been informed that in the past, interviewers have been given a choice of doing the interview via email or by phone. After clarifying with the representative for Amy Roloff that the interview would have to include questions on all topics, the representative confirmed that it was a deal and stated that he would get back to Spiritswander after he consulted with Amy regarding her schedule for a good time to conduct the interview presumably by email or phone. After Spiritswander had fulfilled our obligations to post ARCF charity banners, all that remained was for the ARCF to post Spiritswander on the logo on their website and for the Representative to let us know what time and day Amy was free to interview. The representative then replied, apologizing, giving a vague excuse about "lazy" volunteers being slow to post banners on their website and stated that we could remove our banners that we had already posted as part of the deal he proposed. That was the last time the representative for Amy Roloff had contact with Spiritswander. One is left to assume that the logical explanation is that once the representative informed Amy Roloff that he had arranged an interview with Spiritswander that she quashed the interview which would further demonstrate her negative feelings towards the Spiritswander Blog she was willing to back out of a promise and a deal her representatives of her charity foundation had made after Spiritswander fulfilled our obligations. //

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

14

In the time that has passed since the spring of 2010, Amy Roloff has made it clear that she despises the Spiritswander blog via an internet live streaming talk show and her Facebook Fan Page. Her comments have referenced bloggers and websites that contained information that she stated she was annoyed with that appeared on Spiritswander such as her son and his friend tossing a cat in the air. Many fans expressed their opinion that the Roloffs son and his friend were being cruel towards the cat and mistreating the animal (See Exhibit 7). Amy Roloff expressed her annoyance that the issue was being discussed and deleted fan comments discussing the issue on sites that she controlled or on sites that Matt Roloff controls. The Roloffs do not control Spiritswander content and discussion was open on that subject. The conclusion is that this is what annoys and frustrates the Roloffs about the Spiritswander Blog. In November 2011, John Doe received a series of very hostile, erratic, and threatening comments submitted anonymously to the Spiritswander blog. It is unclear if these comments originated or are associated with the Roloffs, their staff or friends. They are comments claiming to be the former Producer of Little People, Big World, Chris Cardamone, who is also a close Roloff family friend. http://spiritswander.blogspot.com/2011/12/chris-cardamone-former-little-people.html The comments contain several threatening statements including this comment on November 29th, 2011: Oh that's right - remember you are the truthful source of everything Roloff, haha. Your credibility is on the floor. There is a reason why you hide. Don't worry I'll find you, and yes PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE post that I will find you. I can't wait for you to promote yourself "Former Producer Hunting Spiritswander", cause really that is what you are all about right, you! Yes you are a joke. It only helps me. (Exhibit 8)

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

15

Approximately, one week later, after these threatening comments were submitted declaring that they would "find" John Doe, and the use of the term "Hunting Spiritswander", the Roloffs issued the subpoena requesting Google (an act that Matt Roloff described in a Twitter post as the "funnest thing" he has ever done in life) to release all identifying information regarding John Doe. This coincidence should not be taken lightly or ignored by the Court in rendering a decision about whether to release John Doe's personal and private information when there have been hostile threats such as these directed at John Doe and the Blog. Plaintiff Matthew J. Roloff and family have demonstrated vengefulness over the years when they have disputes with people. In addition to continually permitting the use of verbal insults and name calling directed towards the Spiritswander Blog on his MattRoloff.com website, they have used their celebrity status to publicly speak badly on their Websites and Message Boards of neighbors that they have had disputes with in the past. Matthew J. Roloff and his father, Ron Roloff used the full name of the neighbors they had disputes with years ago and spoke negatively about those individuals while addressing their fan base (Exhibit 9). Some of the Roloffs hundreds or thousands of fans took their cue from celebrity Matt Roloff and began speaking ill of the stated neighbor that the Roloffs vilified. There is no way of knowing what some rabid fans will do when the celebrity that they admire makes it known that they dislike a certain individual. Thus, the Roloffs cannot be trusted to have very personal and private information of all persons whom they disagree with and dislike. This is made all the more worrisome when it is factored in that John Doe received a series of very threatening comments from someone claiming to be Chris Cardamone, a personal friend and business associate of the Roloffs, vowing that they would "find" John Doe and used the phrase "Hunting Spiritswander",

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

16

approximately only 7 days before the Roloffs filed this subpoena requesting identifying information about John Doe and the Spiritswander blog. The anonymous person submitting the threatening comments towards John Doe identified themselves as Chris Cardamone who was the former Producer of Little People, Big World and who describes himself as a very close Roloff family friend. The anonymous commenter claiming to be Mr. Cardamone posted the phone number 310-435-1963 (John Doe is asking the court to exercise discretion and its own judgment when deciding to re-print the full phone number in public court documents as John Doe is still uncertain as to whom the number belongs, but is including it here to be factual) and dared the Spiritswander blog to post it publicly (which we did not do on the Blog). I have not called the phone number as it would be irresponsible and an invasion of privacy to call a phone number that is submitted anonymously. All that I know of the number is what could be found on a public website after performing a reverse search of telephone numbers. It is a cell phone registered in Los Angeles one of the places that Mr. Cardamone apparently spends a considerable amount of time. While it certainly cannot be concluded that it was Mr. Cardamone that threatened me, this is an added reason to be suspicious of people associated with the Roloffs and the motives of the Roloffs themselves considering that I am now being subpoenaed so that the Roloffs can identify me and have access to my personal information a mere 7 days after being threatened by an individual claiming to be a close family friend and a professional ally that used the term that they were "Hunting Spiritswander" and vowed to find me. The threatening comments were made on November 29, 2011. The Roloffs filed the motion for a subpoena on or about December 6, 2011. That is one week later that the Roloffs requested the subpoena, which if granted, would provide them with exactly the

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

17

information that I was threatened about and would enable them or their close friends and professional allies to hunt me down. Washington County and any of the defendants in the case are not associated with John Doe or the Blog. They do not have any ability to edit comments or content. They do not have any influence on daily blog items. The blog attempts to be an informative news source regarding the Roloff Family and the Little People, Big World television show. When Matt Roloff publicly commented on the case via another venue, the Blog reported his comments so our readers would be aware of the Roloffs side of the story. When Washington County released a statement intended for public consumption, the Blog also reported their statement and their side of the story. Neither the Roloffs nor Washington County are authors or editors of the blog. They are simply the subjects of a news story we were passing along to our readers. That Washington County or any of the Defendants in this action have no affiliation or association with John Doe's blog is factual information as stated in the Declaration of John Doe Supporting The Motion To Quash. Under the stiffest penalties of perjury by U.S law, I, John Doe "Spiritswander" declare I am not any of the defendants. I declare that none of the defendants have any ability to author blog items or editing ability and that I have no personal relationship or connection to any of the defendants. SYNOPSIS Third Party John Doe's personal and private information and that of all persons that have contributed written material or comments to the Blog is not relevant to the case between the Roloffs and Washington County. They have no association with the Blog as stated in the Declaration of John Doe supporting the Motion to Quash and again in this rebuttal. The Roloffs clearly seek information that is absolutely protected under the First Amendment, and there

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

18

should be additional protections for Spiritswander due to the fact that Spiritswander acts in the capacity as a news gathering entity. There are no comments showing special knowledge of the case - comments about the ark toppling were first made in an article released by Washington County for media consumption so it is unreasonable to say that a poster commenting on that terminology is showing special knowledge. It is also unreasonable to suggest that a poster posting a link to a public website that displays Oregon law is showing special knowledge of the case. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that their need to know all of the requested information in the subpoena is relevant to the case before the Court between Plaintiffs and Washington County. Plaintiffs are making unreasonable demands that would trample on the First Amendment and rights to privacy of hundreds or perhaps thousands of individuals all because Plaintiffs are now claiming that they want to know if a few select Washington County employees have commented anonymously on a public Internet Blog. This request that would grant Plaintiffs access to hundreds or thousands of persons' private information is particularly outrageous and unlawful due to the fact that no anonymous comments on the blog actually demonstrates insider knowledge of this case as everything that was commented about was based on public statements made by both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in public statements or news articles, the television show episode about the incident or public websites about Washington County's procedures regarding nuisances complaints. Plaintiffs dislike for John Doe and John Doe's Blog is well established and the Court cannot ignore the important fact that John Doe received a series of very hostile and threatening messages from an individual claiming to be a friend and an associate of the Roloffs who was verbally abusive towards John Doe and was vowing that they would "find you (John Doe)!" and

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

19

used the phrase that they were "Hunting Spiritswander". A week after these threats were issued, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Subpoena of Google Inc. (an act that Plaintiff Matthew J. Roloff described on his Twitter account as "the funnest thing [he] has ever done in life") that would grant Plaintiffs access to John Doe's private and personal identifying information that would in fact enable them to "find" John Doe as well as the information of hundreds or thousands of other individuals that have commented on the Spiritswander Blog since its inception. Plaintiffs and their counsel have not shown any compelling reason to need the identity of John Doe and the identities of all posters since the inception of the Blog, particularly when threats were issued to John Doe from a person claiming to be a friend and associate of Plaintiffs a mere seven days before Plaintiffs sought the information in the subpoena. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons mentioned above, the Motion to Quash the subpoena should be GRANTED.

Date: January 26, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

/s/John Doe

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 26, 2012, I served the foregoing by U.S. Mail to the following attorneys of record:

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Donald Joe Willis Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, PC 1600-1900 Pacwest Center 1211 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 (541) 749-4012 Fax: (541) 330-1153 Email: jwillis@schwabe.com Attorneys for Defendants: Christopher A. Gilmore Office of Washington County Counsel 340 Public Services Bldg., MS 24 155 N. First Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 (503) 846-8747 Fax: (503) 846-8636 Email: chris_gilmore@co.washington.or.us Ross A Day Day Law Group, P.C. 12755 SW 69th Ave Suite 200 Portland, OR 97223 503-747-2705 Fax: 503-747-2951 Email ross@daylawpc.com

DOES REPLY TO PLTFS OPP OF MOTION TO QUASH

21