Case 8:15-cv-01618-TDC Document 11 Filed 07/31/15 Page 1 of 5
`
`UNITED STATES IlISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF ~IARYLAi'"D
`
`KEYONNA FERRELL,
`
`Plaintiff:
`
`v.
`
`YAIIOO,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 10C-15-1618
`
`~IDIORAi'"DU~l
`
`OPli'"IO:"I
`
`On June 2, 2015, pro se Plaintiff Keyonna Ferrell ("Ferrell'")
`
`tiled the above-captioned
`
`Complaint, ECF No.1,
`
`together
`
`\vilh a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, ECF NO.2.
`
`Ferrell appears indigent,
`
`therefore, she is granted leave to proceed inji.Jrma pauperis.
`
`IlACKGROU:"ID
`
`In the Complaint, Ferrell claims that certain images she had posted on her Pintcrcstl page,
`
`and perhaps a video that she did not post,
`
`remained accessible through the search engine
`
`operated
`
`by Defendant
`
`Yahoo
`
`("Yahoo"')
`
`even after
`
`she had removed
`
`the images
`
`from her
`
`Pintcresl page. Ferrell alleges that Yahoo has thus defamed her character and seeks relief in the
`
`form of an order that the images be removed from her internet search results and an av.'ard of
`
`S500,000 to $100,000 in monetary damages.
`
`is referring to the "",-ebsitcand mobile telephone application Pinterest, on
`It appears Ferrell
`which a user creates an individual page to share photos and links with other users. See Pinterest
`(July 27, 2015), https://v.v.w.pinterest.com/.
`
`

`
`Case 8:15-cv-01618-TDC Document 11 Filed 07/31/15 Page 2 of 5
`
`IJISCVSSION
`
`I. Failure to State 11ell,iot
`
`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(c)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
`
`IIere, 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 of a
`
`pleading must be "simple, concise, and direct," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) & (d)(l). A pleading
`
`must allege enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
`
`678 (2009);
`
`/Jell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
`
`t\ claim is plausible when
`
`"the plaintiff pleads factual content
`
`that al1o'••..s 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); Beaudeu v. City ofllampton.
`
`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 does not state a plausible defamation elaim against Yahoo.
`
`In
`
`a case based on diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. S 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-01618-TDC Document 11 Filed 07/31/15 Page 3 of 5
`
`this case Maryland,
`
`including the forum state's choice of la\\! rules. Colgan Air. Inc. v. Raytheon
`
`Aircraft Co., 507 F.3d 270, 275 (4th Cir. 2007). Dcfamation is a tort claim. Under Maryland
`
`law, the tort doctrine of lex loci delkti provides that the substantivc 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.2 Philip Morris,
`
`Inc. v. Angi!lelli, 752 A,2d 200, 230 (Md. 2000). Under
`
`Virginia law, thc elements of defamation are "( 1) publication of (2) an actionable statement with
`
`(3) the requisite intent."
`
`Schaecher
`
`v. Bouffalllt, 772 S.E2d 589, 594 (Va. 2015)
`
`(intcrnal
`
`citation and quotation marks omittcd).
`
`"An 'actionable'
`
`statement
`
`is both false and defamatory,"
`
`Id. Words are defamatory ifthcy 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 alleges that she put information on the internet
`
`that remained accessible
`
`through the Yahoo search engine and thus available for viewing by the public alter she had
`
`removed the images from Pintcrcst. She also alleges that a video not associated with her appears
`
`among search results based on her name. Nothing about
`
`this allegation suggests
`
`that
`
`the
`
`information made available was false. Ferrell
`
`therefore fails to state a claim for defamation.
`
`2 The Complaint docs not allege \",'hereany 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 bc the same regardless of whether the law of South Carolina, or even
`Maryland,
`\.\"as 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 \.'.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-01618-TDC Document 11 Filed 07/31/15 Page 4 of 5
`
`Furthermore,
`
`the Court is unable to identify any other cause of action based on the allegations in
`
`Ferrell's Complaint. Thus, the Complaint
`
`fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
`
`and is dismissed.)
`
`II. "-lotion to Seal
`Ferrell also filed a Motion to Seal the case on June 10,2015. Eer NO.3. The full text of
`
`the Motion states: ""Please [s)eal all civil suits riled including address, names and [d]ocuments
`
`immediately [sic)."
`
`Id. On July 6, 2015, Ferrell filed a second Motion to Seal, ECF No.5,
`
`in
`
`which she supplemcnted her original request by asserting that the Court should seal all lilings in
`
`this civil case because "celebrities and [B)arack [are] involved:' making the case "substantially
`
`more noteworthy."
`
`[d. at I.
`
`Local Rule 105.11, \vhich governs the sealing of all documents filed in the record, states
`
`10 relevant part;
`
`'"Any motion seeking the sealing of pleadings, motions,
`
`exhibits or other
`
`documents
`
`to be tiled in the Court
`
`record shall
`
`include (a) proposed reasons
`
`supported by
`
`specific factual representations
`
`to justify the scaling and (b) an explanation why altcrnatives
`
`to
`
`sealing would not provide sufficient protection." Local Rule 105.11 (D. Md. 2014). The rule
`
`balances the public's general right 10 inspect and copy judicial
`
`records and documents, see Nixon
`
`v. Warner Commc'm, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), with competing interests that sometimes
`
`in this
`there is a significant question whether venue is proper
`The Court also notes that
`)
`District. Venue would be proper if the defendant
`is a resident of Maryland, or if a substantial
`28 U.S.c. S
`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 Yahoo, a corporation headquartered in California, can
`be deemed to be a resident of Maryland. See 28 U.s.c. 9 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,
`\-vhere Ferrell presumably
`accessed Pintcrcst. or
`in California, where
`there
`is
`undoubtedly personal jurisdiction over Yahoo.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 8:15-cv-01618-TDC Document 11 Filed 07/31/15 Page 5 of 5
`
`outweigh the public's right, seeln re Knight Pub! 'g Co" 743 F.2d 231,235 (4th Cir, 1984), The
`
`common-law presumptive
`
`right of access can only be rebutted by sho\\'ing that ';countervaiiing
`
`interests heavily out\\.'eigh 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.
`
`CO:-;CLUSIOI'i
`
`For the foregoing reasons,
`
`the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is GRANTED.
`
`The
`
`Motions
`
`to Seal are DENIED. The case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. A separate
`
`Order foIl0\.•...5.
`
`Date: July 31, 2015
`
`5