•
`
`•
`
`Case 8:15-cv-01604-TDC Document 12 Filed 07/31/15 Page 1 of 5
`
`•
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`
`Civil Action No. TDC-15-1604
`
`KEYONNA FERRELL,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE,
`
`Defendant.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`On June 2, 2015. pro se Plaintiff Keyonna Ferrell ("Ferrell")
`
`filed the above-captioned
`
`Complaint, ECF No.
`
`I,
`
`together with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, ECF NO.2.
`
`Ferrell appears indigent,
`
`therefore, she is granted leave to proceed informa pauperis.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`In the Complaint, Ferrell claims that certain images she had posted on her Pinterestl page
`
`remained accessible through the search engine operated by Defendant Google ("Google") even
`
`after she had removed the images from her Pinterest page. Ferrell alleges that, as a result of
`
`these images, she is experiencing retaliation,
`
`in the form of having property stolen by unnamed
`
`persons and experiencing unspecified issues with several hotels that do not appear to have any
`
`association with Google. Ferrell alleges that Google has defamed her character and seeks relief
`
`in the fonn of an order that the images be removed from her Pinterest account and an award of
`
`$2 million to $5 million in monetary damages for her emotional distress.
`
`is referring to the website and mobile telephone application Pintercst, on
`It appears Ferrell
`which a user creates an individual page to share photos and links with other users. See Pintcrest
`(July 27, 2015), https://www.pinteresLcoml.
`
`

`
`•
`
`•
`
`Case 8:15-cv-01604-TDC Document 12 Filed 07/31/15 Page 2 of 5
`
`•
`
`I. Failure to State a Claim
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. ~1915 this Court
`
`is granted the discretion to dismiss a proceeding filed
`
`in forma pauperis
`
`if it determines
`
`that the complaint
`
`is frivolous or malicious,
`
`fails to state a
`
`claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
`
`immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. ~1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Here, the Complaint
`
`fails to state a
`
`claim. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a plaintiff is required to provide "a short and
`
`plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," and each averment ofa
`
`pleading must be "simple, concise, and direct," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) & (d)(I). A pleading
`
`must allege enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
`
`678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible when
`
`"the plaintiff pleads factual content
`
`that allows the Court
`
`to draw the reasonable inference that
`
`the defendant
`
`is liable for the misconduct alleged."
`
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Although district
`
`courts have a duty to construe self-represented
`
`pleadings
`
`liberally, a pro se plaintiff must
`
`nevertheless allege facts that state a cause of action and provide enough detail
`
`to illuminate the
`
`nature of the claim and allow defendants to respond. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89. 94
`
`(2007); Beaudell v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (stating that the duty
`
`to construe pro se pleadings
`
`liberally does not require courts to "conjure up questions never
`
`squarely presented").
`
`In this case,
`
`the Complaint docs not state a plausible defamation claim against Google.
`
`In a case based on diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.c. ~ 1332(a) (providing federal jurisdiction over
`
`civil actions in which the parties are citizens of different states and the amount
`
`in controversy
`
`exceeds $75.000),
`
`the district court applies the law of the state in which the court
`
`is located.
`
`in
`
`2
`
`

`
`•
`
`•
`
`Case 8:15-cv-01604-TDC Document 12 Filed 07/31/15 Page 3 of 5
`
`this case Maryland, including the forum state's choice of law rules. Colgan Air, Inc. v. Raytheon
`
`Aircraji Co., 507 F.3d 270, 275 (4th Cir. 2007). Defamation is a tort claim. Under Maryland
`
`law, the tort doctrine of lex loci delicti provides that the substantive law to be applied in a tort
`
`case is that of the state in which the alleged wrong occurred, which appears most likely to be
`
`Virginia in this case.' Philip Morris,
`
`Inc. v. Angelerri, 752 A.2d 200, 230 (Md. 2000). Under
`
`Virginia Jaw, the elements of defamation are "'(1) publication of (2) an actionable statement with
`
`(3) the requisite intent." Schaecher
`
`v. Bouffault, 772 S.E.2d 589, 594 (Va. 2015) (internal
`
`citation and quotation marks omitted). "An 'actionable' statement is both false and defamatory."
`
`Jd. Words are defamatory if they tend to "harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the
`
`estimation of the community," hold a person "up to scorn, ridicule, or contempt," or are
`
`calculated to render a person "infamous odious, or ridiculous."
`
`Id. (internal citation and
`
`quotation marks omitted).
`
`Here, Ferrell's sole allegation is that she put information on the internet that remained
`
`accessible through the Google search engine and thus available for viewing by the public after
`
`she had removed the images from Pinterest. Nothing about this allegation suggests that the
`
`information made available was false. Ferrell therefore fails to state a claim for defamation.
`
`Furthermore, the Court is unable to identify any other cause of action based on the allegations in
`
`2 The Complaint does not allege where any of the incidents occurred. Ferrell has provided the
`Court with mailing addresses in Virginia and South Carolina. Because Ferrell has indicated that
`her preferred mailing address is in Virginia, it seems most likely that Virginia is where she
`resides and where the incidents occurred. The Court therefore applies Virginia law. However,
`the Court's ruling would be the same regardless of whether the law of South Carolina, or even
`Maryland, was applied instead. Like Virginia, both South Carolina and Maryland require a
`plaintiff alleging a defamation claim to show that the statement in question was false and
`defamatory. See Fountain v, First Reliance Bank, 730 S.E.2d 305, 309 (S.C. 2012); Piscatelli v,
`Van Smith, 35 A.3d 1140, 1147 (Md. 2012). As discussed above, Ferrell has failed to allege
`plausibly that the published materials were false.
`
`3
`
`

`
`•
`
`•
`
`Case 8:15-cv-01604-TDC Document 12 Filed 07/31/15 Page 4 of 5
`
`Ferrell's Complaint. Thus, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
`
`and is dismissed.3
`
`II. Motion to Seal
`
`Ferrell also filed a Motion to Seal the case on June 10,2015. ECF No.3.
`
`"lbe full text of
`
`the Motion states: "Please [s]eal all civil suits filed including address, names and [d]ocuments
`
`immediately [sic]."
`
`/d. On July 6, 2015, Ferrell filed a second Motion to Seal, ECF No.5,
`
`in
`
`which she supplemented her original request by asserting that the Court should seal all filings in
`
`this civil case because "celebrities and [B]arack [are] involved," making the case "substantially
`
`more noteworthy."
`
`Id. at 1.
`
`Local Rule 105.11, which governs the sealing of all documents filed in the record, states
`
`In relevant part: "Any motion seeking the sealing of pleadings, motions,
`
`exhibits or other
`
`documents
`
`to be filed in the Court
`
`record shall
`
`include (a) proposed reasons
`
`supported by
`
`specific factual representations
`
`to justiry the sealing and (b) an explanation why alternatives
`
`to
`
`sealing would not provide sufficient protection."
`
`Local Rule 105.11 (D. Md. 2014). The rule
`
`balances the public's generdl right to inspect and copy judicial records and documents, see Nixon
`
`v. Warner Commc'ns,
`
`Inc., 435 U.S. 589,597 (1978), with competing interests that sometimes
`
`outweigh the public's right, see In re Knight Publ'g Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984). The
`
`in this
`there is a significant question whether venue is proper
`The Court also notes that
`3
`District. Venue would be proper if the defendant
`is a resident of Maryland, or if a substantial
`28 U.S.C. 9
`part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Maryland.
`1391(b). There is no indication that any of events in this case occurred in Maryland, and there is
`a substantial question whether defendant Google, a corporation headquartered in California, can
`be deemed to be a resident of Maryland. See 28 U.S.C. ~ 1391(c)(2) (noting that a corporation is
`"deemed to reside in any judicial district
`in which such defendant
`is subject
`to the court's
`personal jurisdiction with respect
`to the civil action in question"). Thus, even if the Complaint
`stated a cognizable
`claim,
`this action likely should have been brought
`in Virginia or South
`Carolina, where Ferrell presumably
`accessed Pinterest,
`or
`in California, where
`there
`is
`undoubtedly personal jurisdiction over Google.
`
`4
`
`

`
`•
`
`•
`
`Case 8:15-cv-01604-TDC Document 12 Filed 07/31/15 Page 5 of 5
`
`common.law presumptive right of access can only be rebutted by showing that "countervailing
`
`interests heavily outweigh the public interest in access." Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 265-
`
`66 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine,
`
`Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir.
`
`1988)). Because neither of the Motions
`
`to Seal
`
`identify such a countervailing
`
`interest,
`
`the
`
`Motions are denied.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons,
`
`the Motion to Proceed in Fonna Pauperis is GRANTED.
`
`1be
`
`Motions to Seal are DENIED. The case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. A separate
`
`Order follows.
`
`Date: July 30, 2015
`
`NO
`'e
`
`5