Attorney General Anand Ramlogan yesterday provided six legal documents to the T&T Guardian. They all relate to an action in the Superior Court of California at Santa Clara.
The most substantial of the documents is an action for defamation, among other things, against unknown defendants, named as “John Doe, Jane Doe and Does 3-100,” who Ramlogan says libelled him in or in connection with the E-mailgate scandal. He is claiming some of these as-yet-unknown people fabricated and then sent the e-mails as if they came from him and other government ministers.
Four of the other documents are in support of this lawsuit for libel. They were compiled and submitted to the court by the Computerlaw Group of Palo Alto, California. Google is based in Mountain View, California. The sixth document is a consent order (agreement) from April this year that Google will release the information Ramlogan is seeking about the Google accounts associated with E-mailgate, once he sends an e-mail from his personal e-mail address requesting that information.
The documents do not show whether Ramlogan sent the request or received the information from Google.
They are:
1 Deposition subpoena for production of business records, issued on June 25, 2013
Addressed to Google Inc, this seeks an order for the company to produce certain records on July 16, 2013. Ramlogan was seeking information relating to the e-mail addresses: anan@gmail.com, kamlapb1@gmail,.com, anand@tstt.net.tt and the variations on those addresses which appeared in the E-mailgate printouts. The information includes:
• the names, addresses and phone numbers of people who registered the e-mail accounts
• the date and time and the IP address from which the account was registered
• the type of device/s from which the account was accessed
He also wanted information to identify the senders and recipients of any e-mails to or from those accounts from September 1, 2012 to the date of his application.
2 Ex-parte application for expedited discovery, endorsed by the court on June 26, 2013.
The application outlines the E-mailgate revelation in Parliament, referring to “29 fraudulent e-mails.”
The statement of facts says: “Plaintiff has never maintained a Gmail account using any of the addresses listed. He does maintain an authentic anand@tstt.net.tt account operated by Google, but he never sent any of the e-mails from that account. The persons who actually sent and conspired to author and send them are the Doe Defendants, who have compounded this action by falsely publishing and accusing Plaintiff of being the author.”
The document then quotes incriminating sections of the e-mails which it claims show the purported author as corrupt, abusing political power, threatening a journalist, and “using coarse, insulting and vulgar language.” It cites forensic expert Jon Berryhill as concluding that the e-mails are “likely forgeries.”
In support of his demand for the information from Google, Ramlogan’s attorneys argue that Google can help identify the people who opened the accounts and sent the e-mails. This information, they argue, will enable Ramlogan to “direct discovery requests seeking corroboration of his innocence and proof of their guilt from the senders and recipients themselves.”
They argue that expedited discovery should be granted, rather than waiting the prescribed ten days, because Ramlogan has been unable to find out the identity of the senders by other means, and “despite making every effort to show the e-mails are forgeries, and to assert the truth, Mr Ramlogan has been made the object of official investigations, including a criminal inquiry by the police. The controversy has shown remarkable staying power...In order to rehabilitate his reputation, Plaintiff is forced to seek relief from this court...”
3 Order granting Ramlogan’s ex-parte application against John and Jane Doe and Does 3-100 for expedited discovery.
Endorsed by the court on June 26, 2013, this order was granted by Socrates P Manoukian, Justice of the Supreme Court. It gave Ramlogan permission to serve his deposition subpoena on Google Inc immediately and waived the ten-day waiting period.
4 Attachments to deposition subpoena for production of business records. Addressed to Google, Inc, this bundle of documents is signed August 26, 2013, by Jack Russo of Computerlaw, but is not endorsed by the court.
The first is Attachment 3, which defines and lists the information listed in document 1 as being sought from Google. Attachment 4, labelled “Content of interest,” is the transcript of the e-mails read out in E-mailgate. These attachments are followed by a document signed by Russo on August 26, 2013 and labelled “Notice to consumer or employee.” The addressee is named as Kamala (sic) Persad-Bissessar.
The document informs her that Plaintiff Anand Ramlogan is seeking her records from Google for examination, and that she must register any objection. The document is not signed by Persad-Bissessar. It is followed by a similar document addressed to Ramlogan, also unsigned by him. Each of these two notices is accompanied by an unsigned proof that the notice has been served.
5 Civil lawsuit notice endorsed by the court on June 26, 2013, and listed for a case management hearing on October 22, 2013, before the Honourable Peter Kirwan.
The lawsuit is categorised as a defamation suit and the remedies sought are monetary, a declaration or injunctive relief, and punitive damages.
Ramlogan’s complaint is for:
1 Conspiracy to ruin
2 Defamation
3 Negligent misrepresentation
4 Intentional infliction of emotional distress
5 Negligent infliction of emotional distress
6 False light invasion of privacy
The defendants are John and Jane Doe and Does 3-100, who are given 30 days to file a defence. In the 12-page statement of claim, the attorneys say the venue is a proper one for the case “because much of the evidence necessary for determination of this dispute is, on information and belief, located in this county, and Doe 1 entered into a contract in this county.” The claim explains later that this contract entailed opening a Gmail account.
They explain that the defendants are “unknown at this time and Plaintiff pleads them as fictitiously named defendants, whether individuals, corporations...At such time as defendants’ true names become known to Plaintiff, Plaintiff will ask leave of this court to amend this complaint to insert their true names and capacities.”
In the background facts, Ramlogan’s lawyers say he has “always enjoyed an excellent reputation for honesty and uprightness of character and he is a leader in his community as well as a minister in the government of the Republic of T&T.”
Ramlogan alleges that defendants Doe 1 and/or 2 “wrote messages originating from, and replied to messages received at, an account using the pseudonymous e-mail addresses,” and in so doing published “scurrilous, illegal, and both civilly and criminally wrongful statements purporting to be authored by Mr Ramlogan.” The claim then quotes incriminating sections of the e-mails.
Doe 1 and Does 2-100, he says, then “further republished the ersatz statements in the pseudonymous e-mails” by sending them to Opposition Leader Dr Kenneth (sic) Rowley, who read them in Parliament, since when they had been repeatedly published in T&T, the US and internationally, and had fed “discussions, rumours and innuendo” online and elsewhere.
The damage Ramlogan suffered in consequence, says his claim, was that he was discredited as an attorney, as AG, as a politician, within his party, and among his superiors and colleagues, fellow citizens and the diplomatic community. The sixth cause of action, “false light invasion of privacy,” is related to defamation but is an offence recognised separately in some US states, which involves malice in putting the plaintiff in a false light and is highly offensive or embarrassing.
As well as the statement of claim, the lawsuit is accompanied by a transcript of the purported E-mailgate messages and 15 printouts of reports and comments on the scandal from the Web sites of T&T- and US-based media houses.
6 Amended consent order, endorsed by the court on April 21, 2014.
In this document, Ramlogan and Google agree that within ten days Ramlogan will e-mail Google at google-legal-support@google.com from his e-mail address anand@tstt.net.tt. In the e-mail he will state that he is the only user of the account and will consent to Google disclosing to his attorney “the content of any Gmail communications received from kamlapb1@gmail.com or sent to kamlapb1@gmail.com from anand@tstt.net.tt between September 1, 2012 and September 30, 2012.”
Within ten days of receiving that e-mail, Google will disclose the specified content to Russo. Google has no obligation to make the disclosure until it receives the e-mail from Ramlogan’s account. The order resolves any legal action or court orders directed against Google in the matter. The consent order is signed by Russo on Ramlogan’s behalf and by Kevan Fornasero of Perkins Coie LLP for Google and ordered by Superior Court Judge Patricia M Lucas.