Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 24STCP00607, Date: 2024-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 24STCP00607, Date: 2024-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP00607 Hearing Date: June 13, 2024 Dept: 14

#12

Case Background

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants illegally accessed his email and social media accounts.

On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff William Wade filed the Complaint for (1) Invasion of Privacy, (2) Civil Harassment in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (4) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and (5) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Does 1 through 20 (collectively, “Defendants”). No Doe amendments have been filed and no Defendants have appeared yet.

On May 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for limited-expedited discovery. On June 5, 2024, non-party Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) filed an opposition. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

No trial date is set.

Instant Motion

Plaintiff now moves this court for leave to engage in limited and expedited discovery against Microsoft.

Decision

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff may serve or conduct discovery against Microsoft to obtain necessary information, but only to the extent necessary to identify and locate the Doe Defendants.

Governing Standard

“Subject to Sections 2025.270 and 2025.610, an oral deposition may be taken as follows:… (b) The plaintiff may serve a deposition notice without leave of court on any date that is 20 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, any defendant. On motion with or without notice, the court, for good cause shown, may grant to a plaintiff leave to serve a deposition notice on an earlier date.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.210, subd. (b). This 20-day hold applies also to subpoenas for production of business records. California Shellfish Inc. v. United Shellfish Co. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 16, 20-23. The deposition methods available against a party are also available against non-parties. Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.

Preliminary Issue

The court notes that Microsoft served its opposition on June 5, 2024, well after the May 31, 2024 deadline. See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b). The court will still consider Microsoft’s opposition, but admonishes Microsoft to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure going forward. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d); Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202.

Discussion

A plaintiff may serve a deposition notice before the expiration of the 20-day hold set forth in subdivision (b) of section 2025.210 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon a showing of good cause. Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.210, subd. (b). “[G]ood cause which must be shown should be such that will satisfy an impartial tribunal that the request may be granted without abuse of the inherent rights of the adversary.” Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Ct. In & For Merced Cnty. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 388, superseded by statute on other grounds in Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480.

The court finds Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for obtaining leave to serve discovery on Microsoft before the expiration of the 20-day hold in subdivision (b) of section 2025.210 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is clear that Plaintiff needs information to identify and locate the Doe Defendants in this action and that Microsoft has at least some of this information. Compl., ¶¶ 3-19; Microsoft Opp., 3:9-17. The court further notes that Microsoft’s opposition is more of a limited opposition, as it only seeks to require Plaintiff to comply with the proper procedures for obtaining the requested discovery. Microsoft Opp., 5:4-5.

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the motion, but only to the extent necessary for Plaintiff to identify and locate the Doe Defendants. To the extent Plaintiff seeks an order from the court compelling Microsoft to comply with the previously served subpoena, the court declines to grant any relief.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff may serve or conduct discovery against Microsoft to obtain necessary information, but only to the extent necessary to identify and locate the Doe Defendants.