After a while the popcorn gets stale and it's summer, and the bunnies want to go out an play. Popehat has the latest in Mann vs. Steyn, except this is Doe vs. Burke which may or may not have implications for Mann vs. Steyn. Yes it is that boring. Doe is a dear, a Wikepedia author, Burke is a lawyer who does human rights litigation and does not like Blackwater muchly. Anyhow Doe wrote something on the Wiki about Burke and Burke wants to know who Doe is and Doe does not want her to know. Doe's attempt to quash an order to the Wikipedia was quashed, and Doe (who may be a she Doe) appealed. The issue being whether an immediate appeal is allowed, somewhat like in Mann vs. Steyn and the court hearing the appeal said yes, but, in footnote 6 (footnote 6 being the third reviewer in all cases, the court leaves itself wiggle room)
6. We do not address the related but separate question of whether an order denying a special motion to dismiss under the Anti-SLAPP Act is immediately appealable. We note that this was an issue in a different case before this court, Mann v. Nat’l Review, Inc., et al., 13-CV-1043, but the appeal in that case was dismissed before an opinion was issued. Two days before oral argument for this case, the District of Columbia delivered to the court the amicus brief it filed in Mann. It is not clear what the District, which is not a party to this case, sought to accomplish, procedurally or substantively, with this submission. While the District is not required to ask permission to be amicus in this court, see D.C. App. R. 29(a), it still must follow other rules pertaining to amicus filings, see, e.g.,D.C. App. R.29(c)-e). Moreover, if it meant to participate in this case as amicus by resubmitting its Mann amicus brief, that brief provides little guidance regarding the issue before us. In a footnote, the District in Mann took the position that whether the denial of a special motion to dismiss is immediately appealable is “related, but quite distinct” from whether the denial of a special motion to quash is appealable, and it never said whether the appealability of these distinct motions should be resolved similarly or differently. We see no reason to address the appealability of the special motion to dismiss in this case.Mostly the court appears to be leaving the issue of immediate appealability in cases like MvS hanging out there for later, see footnote 12.