LexisNexis
v.
Doe
24-77-9CV
The application for a stay presented to Justice Coco and by him referred to the Court in case No. 24-77-9CV is granted. The District Court of Petty Complaints’ order is stayed pending further order of the Court.
Allard, C.J., dissenting.
The Court today grants LexisNexis’s stay, upending our precedent and implicating us in the cluttering of law students’ already-cluttered email inboxes—all without briefing or argument. The Court’s decision is especially perplexing, given the high bar for a stay pending appeal. Concerned by the Court’s cavalier disregard for our law, I dissent.
Respondent, an anonymous student who described himself only as “a ruggedly handsome six-footer,” filed suit against LexisNexis, alleging tortious interference with inbox management. Respondent explained that he has “tried one hundred times to unsubscribe . . . from LexisNexis emails,” but has nonetheless received no less than ten emails in September, and had received another seven by the time this case was filed in mid-October. Respondent sought injunctive relief and punitive damages for “ignoring . . . unsubscribe requests” and “that Clifford the Big Red Dog color scheme.”
Ruling only on the email subscription issue, the district court temporarily enjoined LexisNexis from emailing the Respondent. In its order, the district court relied on our holding in In re Coronavirus Emails, where we enjoined the Law School from sending too many pandemic-related emails. 72 U. Va 20 (2020) (“[A]ll persons are ordered to ask, ‘Does this need to be sent?’ before any emails are sent.”). Argued at the onset of the pandemic in March 2020, we reasoned that the horde of Covid-related emails unfairly required students to “decide if the cost of not reading the email and missing something outweighs the benefits, and wander forth into the great virtual unknown.” Id.
Facing what would become a severe global pandemic, this Court said “tl;dr.” That is a testament to the pettiness of the Justices who unanimously authored In re Coronavirus Emails. And it has clear implications for this case. As the district court explained at length, if a global pandemic was not serious enough for us to open students’ inboxes to a flood of emails, then surely LexisNexis’s latest law school guide is not. LexisNexis may spread like a virus, but it is not half as important as one.
The ordering justices, perhaps too busy counting their Lexis rewards points to read our precedent, instead choose to ignore it. Capitulating to LexisNexis’s insistence that the precedent was wrongly decided, the Court effectively reverses Coronavirus Emails with hardly any briefing on its merits. It may well be that In re Coronavirus Emails ought to be revisited. LexisNexis argued that the Court’s bit commitment principles, see Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (Lake, C.J., concurring) (“There is nothing more vital to the exercise of justice than committing to the bit.”), require us to permit the avalanche of LexisNexis emails, as it contributes to the suffering of 1Ls, which everyone knows is funny.
That may be so. But any reversal of our precedent must come after briefing and argument. To do otherwise is an abdication of our duty as petty jurists. Yes, we must commit to the bit, but in doing so, we must follow proper procedure and at least kinda adhere to our law. Otherwise, we risk shattering the illusion that the countless minutes of research and writing that lawyers put into our cases actually move the needle.
Like any self-respecting law student, I use Westlaw, and I know that LexisNexis’s primary purpose is financing 1Ls’ Chipotle needs. See SOHUNGRY v. LexisNexis Rewards, 75 U.Va 23 (2023). Given my animus toward LexisNexis, I am unlikely to rule in their favor if we grant a full argument in this case, which further weighs against their likelihood of success on the merits. Truly, this order should have been one of those beautiful moments where my priors align perfectly with our precedent, and I hardly have to do any mental gymnastics to enforce my will upon the Law School. Instead, I have been forced by my fellow justices to pen this angry dissent. And I do so disrespectfully.
Allen, J., concurring.
Too long; didn’t read.
---
tya2us@virginia.edu