Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 19SMCV00935, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19SMCV00935 Hearing Date: January 31, 2023 Dept: P
Tentative Ruling
Dr. Stewart Lucas
Murrey v. Cheaterreport.com et al., Case No. 19SMCV00935
Hearing Date
January 31, 2023
Plaintiff Murrey’s
Motion to Compel Production of Further Documents
Plaintiff alleges
the website www.Cheaterreport.com published
defamatory statements about him. On March 22, 2022, the court granted Murrey
leave to conduct limited third party discovery to identify the person or
persons who created the website. Murrey served subpoenas duces tecum on third
parties Amazon, Facebook, Instagram, Yahoo and Cloudflare, seeking production
of business records. He argues these entities’ responses were inadequate and
moves to compel further production.
Upon a party’s
motion, a court may make an order directing compliance with a subpoena duces
tecum for production of documents. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2016.010.
Amazon
Murrey argues
Amazon’s responses were insufficient or consisted of invalid objections. Amazon
argues it conducted a diligent search of its records and concluded the IP
address identified by Murrey was never associated with an Amazon consumer, and
the majority of Murrey’s other requests were overbroad and/or irrelevant.
Requests 1-2 are
relevant in light of the court’s March 22, 2022 order that Murrey is permitted
to conduct third-party discovery to identify the person who created
Cheaterreport.com. Amazon states that it conducted a diligent search and found
no responsive documents. Requests 3-4 seek relevant information, but as phrased
are overbroad, seeking “any and all details” related to the alleged creator of
Cheaterreport. This language is too vague to allow Amazon to meaningfully
respond. Similarly, requests 5 and 6 are overbroad, seeking “any and all
documents” created when Amazon allegedly “entered into business” with the
creater of Cheaterreport, with no limitation as to content.
Requests 7-9,
which seek payment information related to Cheaterreport.com are valid requests
and not overbroad. As stated, the court ordered that Murrey may conduct
discovery to identify the person who created the website and/or made the
allegedly defamatory posts. Payments that individual made to the internet
service provider are relevant to determining that person’s identity, so discoverable.
Amazon has shown
requests 10-13 are overbroad, since the IP address in question is shared by a
number of different AWS customers, whose identities are irrelevant to this
lawsuit. The request implicates the privacy rights of third parties and are
improper.
Requests 14 through
16 are overbroad, seeking “any and all documents” regarding Amazon’s alleged
contractual relationship with Cheaterreport. Nonetheless, Amazon is required to
make a good faith effort to produce responsive documents. Requests 17 and 18 fall
outside the scope of the court’s March 22 order, which only granted leave to conduct
discovery as to Cheaterreport.com, not the other websites named in the requests.
Requests nos. 19-46
are overbroad and/or irrelevant. They seek information related to the
relationship between Amazon and various third parties, including Jeffrey
Epstein and the U.S. Government. They fall outside the scope of the court’s limited
third-party discovery order, which was narrowly framed to allow discovery
related to the identity of the person who created and/or posted defamatory
statements on cheaterreport.com.
Amazon must
provide further responses to requests 7-9 and 14-16. For the reasons stated, no
further responses to the other requests will be compelled. No sanctions will be
issued, as Murrey has not shown that Amazon acted in bad faith.
Meta (Facebook and
Instagram)
The Stored
Communications Act prohibits entities providing remote computing services from
divulging “the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained on
that service.” 18 U.S.C.A. §2702 (a)(1)-(3). There is no exception to the SCA
for civil subpoenas. O’Grady v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th
1423, 1443. Additionally, the court cannot permit production of identifying
information that would confirm the existence of content protected under the
SCA. Id. at 1448.
Murrey argues
Facebook/Meta produced insufficient responses to his discovery requests and
moves to compel further. Facebook/Meta argues most of the information sought is
either irrelevant or protected.
Meta-- Facebook
Requests 1-11 to
Facebook all request production of Facebook posts, comments, “likes,” or
identifying information related to the same. This information is protected
under the SCA, and its production cannot be compelled. Requests 12-14 seek
information related to plaintiff’s own Facebook account. Facebook is not a
party to this litigation, and its treatment of Murrey’s account is not relevant
to his defamation claims against Cheaterreport.
Requests 15 and 16
seek any documents related to a contractual relationship between Facebook and
Cheaterreport, and any documents demonstrating payments between Facebook and
Cheaterreport. These documents are relevant to determining the identity of the
website’s creator, so are discoverable under the court’s March 2022 order.
The remainder of
the requests – nos. 17-36 – relate to Facebook’s internal policies or various
third parties other than Cheaterreport. These requests fall outside the scope
of the third-party discovery permitted in the court’s March order. Only
documents related directly to the identity of Cheaterreport’s creator are
discoverable under the order. These requests are improper.
GRANTED as to
requests 15 and 16. DENIED as to all other requests. No sanctions will be
awarded, since Murrey has not shown Meta acted in bad faith.
Meta-- Instagram
All requests to
Instagram either seek communications protected under the SCA, identifying
information confirming the existence of such communications, irrelevant third-party
information, or information related to the internal policies of Instagram. As
such, no further production will be ordered. DENIED.
Yahoo
As with the
Instagram requests, all requests to Yahoo either seek information protected
under the SCA, irrelevant third-party information, or information related to plaintiff’s
personal Yahoo account. All these categories fall outside the scope of the
court’s third-party discovery order. DENIED.
Cloudflare
Several of the
discovery requests seek information related to alleged Cloudflare employees Son
Lam and Julia Rieper. These requests fall outside the scope of the Court’s
order in March 2022, which was narrowly tailored to allow third-party discovery
related to cheaterreport.com only. Additionally, the other requests – nos. 109,
111, 115, 116, and 117 -- ask for information related to Cloudflare’s
relationship with the US government and third-party company Palantir, both
irrelevant to the current litigation. DENIED.