Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Yesterday in Wikileaks: One Injunction Or Two? I explained why I was somewhat dubious about the theory that the second order in the Wikileaks case amended the first. Now it seems that the place where I found that theory, the Citizens Media Law Project, may be coming around to my point of view. In Making Sense of the Wikileaks Fiasco: Prior Restraints in the Internet Age, David Ardia writes,

This second order is actually captioned as an “Amended Temporary Restraining Order” which led me to believe yesterday that the court had amended its first order that required the take down of the Wikileaks site. I’ve now come to realize that the judge intended no such amendment. I guess he felt it wasn’t enough to shutdown the Wikileaks website, he’d add a second dose of judicial oversight to make sure things really went in the banks favor.

So, maybe we have a consensus?

Thanks to commentator 09F9 1102, a link to Media Statement on Behalf of Dynadot in re: Wikileaks Litigation:

The following constitutes Dynadot’s response to the Feb. 15 court order in the case of Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd v. Wikileaks, et al., which is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco.

“This case raises First Amendment issues that are for the Courts to decide, not my client, Dynadot,” stated Garret D. Murai of Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean, LLP, who represents Dynadot. “The only agreement by Dynadot was to comply with the Court’s previous order to preserve evidence, including preventing Wikileaks from transferring its domain name to another registrar and from changing its account settings – essentially, to preserve the status quo. Dynadot did not agree to remove the name server settings for wikileaks.org or to produce any information. This was requested by Julius Baer and granted by the Court.”

“It was explained to the Court that Dynadot only provides domain name registration services to Wikileaks. Dynadot is not the DNS provider nor is it the web host provider that maintains the content of wikileaks.org,” explains Kathryn Chow Han, in-house legal counsel for Dynadot. “Our company does not take a position on the merits of this litigation. However, if Julius Baer is concerned with the posting of its confidential documents on the wikileaks.org web site, it could have sought a more narrow remedy than seeking to have the entire wikileaks.org web site shut down.”

There seems to be real and continuing confusion about what exactly happened in the wikileaks case. (Translation: I'm confused, and so are some other people.) I've had a look at the PACER records — the official online docket — for the case, and I still am not as sure as I would like.

Here's what we know for sure. The court issued its injunction against Dynadot, an order PACER describes as “ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White granting 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to defendant DYNADOT LLC (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2008) (Entered: 02/15/2008).”

The next entry on the docket is what I previously described as the “gag order”, and which PACER captions as “ORDER GRANTING AMENDED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 2/15/08. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2008) (Entered: 02/15/2008)”.

Julius Baer Bank and Trust v. Wikileaks page at the Citizen Media Law Project, describes the sequence of events as follows,

On February 15, 2008, the court issued what it captioned as an “Order Granting Permanent Injunction.” This order, which appears to be the result of a stipulation between the plaintiffs and Dynadot, Wikileaks' domain name registrar and web host, required that Dynadot immediately disable the entire wikileaks.org domain name and account and remove all DNS hosting records.

Later that same day, the court issued an Amended Temporary Restraining Order that drops the requirement that Dynadot disable the entire Wikileaks.org domain. Among other things, the amended order enjoins the defendants from “displaying, posting, publishing, distributing, or linking to … all documents and information originating from [the plaintiffs' banks] which are internal non-public company documents and/or which contains private client or customer bank records.”

From the official sources, I can't tell you for sure that this is wrong, but I can tell you why it doesn't seem all that likely: (1) the first order is a preliminary injunction, the second only a TRO; (2) the second order nowhere mentions that it is either amending or vacating the first order, which you would expect if it were; (3) the two orders are largely addressed to different parties and are about different things (yes, Dynadot is mentioned in the second one, but only as part of a large group); (4) the first order contemplates an order being drafted for Dynadot being dismissed with prejudice, the second doesn't.

Now, if it's true that if these are two separate orders, that doesn't explain why the second one is captioned an “amended” TRO. What's it amending? Either an earlier order, or an earlier draft order, I presume, but I haven't figured out which.

Wikilleaks's account of the correspondence between it and Bank Julius Bear. Notable in this account is the odd failure of the demand letter to say what documents they wanted taken down.

Copy of the motion for injunction filed by Julius Baer in California via TPM Muckraker.

Also, note that I fixed the link in my previous post to now point to a locally-hosted copy of the California gag order.