Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Mark Mandemaker is a YouTube content provider and the operator of two YouTube channels. Plaintiff believes that unknown persons, possibly some of his YouTube competitors, directly or indirectly contacted YouTube, wrongfully causing Plaintiff damages. Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit to remedy his injuries.  Plaintiff does not yet know defendants’ identities and has named them fictitiously as “DOE” defendants. (Boylan Decl. ¶ 3.)  

This Court has ordered Plaintiff to show cause why he has not yet served any Defendant.  Plaintiff maintains he cannot serve Defendants without conducting early discovery necessary to determine Defendants’ identity and location so that they can be physically served, imposing upon them the duty to answer or risk defaulting. (Boylan Decl. ¶ 3.)  

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion for early discovery.  Plaintiff argues that he has good cause to seek early discovery so he can identify the Doe defendants and serve them.  ¿ 

DISCUSSION 

The California Civil Discovery Act provides litigants with broad rights to obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 538.) The right to discovery is intended to be broad and is generally construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper due to well-established causes for denial. (Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 541.)  This right includes an entitlement to learn “the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.”  (Id.) 

It was the intent of the Legislature that discovery be allowed whenever consistent with justice and public policy.  The statutory provisions must be liberally construed in favor of discovery and the courts must not extend the statutory limitations upon discovery beyond the limits expressed by the Legislature.” (Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 738 739; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 402.) This means that disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it. (Id.)  

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 474 allows plaintiffs to designate unknown defendants as DOE defendants when the plaintiff is ignorant of the defendant's true name.  Early discovery is allowed to ascertain the identity of a Doe defendant. (Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1, 13-20.)  

Analogous case law supports California law.  California federal courts have held that a plaintiff “should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendant.” (Zoosk Inc. v. Doe (N.D. Cal. Dec.9, 2010) No. C-10-04545 LB [2010 WL 5115670 at 2]; Gillespie v. Civilett (9th Cir. 1980) 629 F.2d 637, 642-643 (reversing dismissal of complaint for failure to identify DOE defendants where plaintiff served discovery to identify the defendants: “[W]here the identity of alleged defendants will not be known prior to the filing of a complaint … the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.”); Columbia Ins. Co. V. Seescandy.com (N.D. Cal. 1999) 185 F.R.D. 573, 577-578 (even under the Federal Rules where there is a hold on discovery at the outset, “courts have made exceptions, permitting limited discovery to learn the identifying facts necessary to permit service on the defendant…”). 

Good cause exists to allow discovery here.  This case cannot move forward unless and until Plaintiff learns the identity and location of each Defendant and serves them with the Complaint. Plaintiff believes that nonparties maintain discoverable information/records that will allow Plaintiff to identify the Doe Defendants, ascertain their location, amend the Complaint to name them, and serve them, triggering the deadline for the named defendants to respond. 

CONCLUSION 

  For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion for early discovery.            

DATED:  February 20, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court