We recently reported on how the controversy regarding the ostensible connection between vaccination and childhood autism had ensnared an innocent bystander. Kathleen Seidel, who runs the Neurodiversity web site and blog, was targeted by a subpoena that demanded information on everything from her finances to her religious affiliations. Seidel got good news on Monday, as her motion to quash the subpoena was granted. The news was not so good for the lawyer that issued it, who now has to explain to the judge why he shouldn't be sanctioned for his actions.

Seidel was never actually a party to the lawsuit, which was started by the parents of an autistic child. It initially targeted vaccine makers for their use of a mercury-containing preservative but, as charges have been thrown out and new ones filed, it has morphed into something nearly unrelated to the initial case, with more electric companies than drug makers involved. Seidel was among the bloggers following the case and, for her efforts, received a subpoena that required her to produce financial records, contacts with fellow bloggers and the scientific community, and, most disturbingly, "communication with any religious groups (Muslim or otherwise)."

She fought back, arguing that the subpoena was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and might actually impinge on various constitutional freedoms. The ruling, filed in the US District Court of New Hampshire, is only a paragraph long, and kills the subpoena in the first sentence without explaining its reasoning. The remainder of the paragraph, however, suggests that there was no need to drag the Constitution into things, as the initial filing appears to violate two of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The ruling orders the attorney who initially filed the subpoena to "show cause within 10 days why he should not be sanctioned" for violating the federal rules. Apparently, given the location where the case is being tried, the subpoena should have been filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, rather than in Seidel's home state of New Hampshire. The judge also indicated that the subpoena seemed unduly burdensome, as Seidel had argued. Ominously, the ruling indicates that a failure to adequately address these issues will result in the attorney's conduct being reported to the judge presiding over the lawsuit in Virginia.

In the end, as we suggested earlier, the numerous flaws in the subpoena allowed the judge that quashed it to rule on narrow grounds, leaving the status of bloggers as public voices or journalists unaddressed. Given the intrusive nature of the subpoena, however, it's difficult to be disappointed by this ruling.