Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV39001, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39001    Hearing Date: January 20, 2023    Dept: 32

 

R. MICHAEL COLLUM, et al.,

                        Plaintiffs,

            v.

 

DOES 1 THROUGH 25,

                        Defendants.

 

  Case No.:  22STCV39001

  Hearing Date:  January 20, 2023

 

     [TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiffs’ motion for early discovery

 

 

BACKGROUND

            On December 15, 2022, Plaintiffs R. Michael Collum, Ryan D. Grady, Michael Collum, APC, and Ryan Grady, LCSW filed this defamation action against Does 1 through 25. The lawsuit arises from anonymous postings on various websites, purporting to be customer reviews, allegedly containing false assertions of fact regarding negative experiences with Plaintiffs and their law firms.

            On December 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for early discovery to serve subpoenas for business records upon Yelp, Inc., Google, Inc., Microsoft, Inc., MH Sub I, LLC, and the internet service providers (ISPs) of the Doe defendants.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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(b).)

DISCUSSION

            Because Plaintiffs do not yet know the identities of the Doe defendants, no defendant has been served or appeared in this action. “Not having yet named any defendant, and a fortiori having served none, [Plaintiffs] need[] leave of court before [they] could propound discovery . . . .” (O'Grady v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1423, 1454.) Under these circumstances, there is good cause to allow Plaintiffs to subpoena the listed entities.

            However, the Court makes no findings regarding the merits of any discovery request, and the recipients of any discovery requests retain the right to object to them.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to conduct early discovery is GRANTED.