Twitter And Youtube Misconduct Alleged

A recent complaint filed by North Carolina State Bar alleges both traditional and cutting-edge violations of the prohibition against conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The charged attorney represented herself in federal court litigation. She took the video deposition of a defendant named Amy Bouque.

After losing on summary judgment and exhausting her appeals, she posted the 37 minute video of the deposition on Youtube with audio commentary. 

The post was titled: “Amy Bouque: Best Ways to Tell if A Witness is Lying.”

She publicized the video on Twitter as a helpful way to “identify deceit.” 

The defendant got a protective order that the attorney challenged at the hearing and on appeal. After losing, she took down the video but replaced it with a video that consisted of still images of the deposition with narration stating that the witness had committed perjury.

The defendants went back to court for a second protective order. The judge considered (but declined to impose) sanctions but suggested that the attorney was playing games.

She was ordered to remove all videos relating to the deposition, in the judge’s word

    “None. Zero.”

The issue led to 61 docket entries and two Fourth Circuit opinions.

The Fourth Circuit order remanding on procedural grounds is here. 

We conclude that the magistrate judge lacked authority to enter an order on Defendants’ motion for a protective order. A magistrate judge may not decide, postjudgment, a motion that would be a proper pretrial motion under § 636(b)(1)(A) because “resolution of such motions is dispositive of a claim.” Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 510 (6th Cir. 1993); see Rajaratnam v. Moyer, 47 F.3d 922, 924 (7th Cir. 1995); Aluminum Co. of Am., 663 F.2d at 501 (holding that motion to quash subpoena “was not a ‘pretrial matter’ but set forth all of the relief requested”). Therefore, the district court was required to provide de novo review; its order makes clear, however, that it reviewed only for clear error. 

The attorney’s answer is linked here. 

The answer asserts First Amendment protection and states the her motivation was to educate the public about pro se litigation. She denied that she knowingly violated any court order.

Lorene D. Park has a nice summary of the underlying litigation. (Mike Frisch)