Under CCP 1987.2, a party that moves to quash a subpoena for that party’s personal identifying information may recover attorney fees upon demonstrating (i) he prevailed on the motion to quash, (ii) the underlying action arises from the party’s exercise of free speech rights on the Internet, and (iii) the plaintiff in that proceeding did not make a prima facie showing of a cause of action. The trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s fee motion under 1987.2 is affirmed as plaintiff failed to establish any of the three prerequisites for an award. He did not prevail. The subpoena was dropped because the defendant resolved the underlying dispute with his former wife whom he had accused of breaching an earlier settlement agreement by feeding confidential information to plaintiff who then posted it on the Internet. The posts were not exercises of protected free speech but instead were harassment. And, the defendant made a prima facie showing of merit in his claim against his former wife for breach of the prior settlement agreement.