Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCP03057, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP03057    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiff J.D.F.’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena is GRANTED.

Plaintiff to provide notice.

I.                   MOTION TO PERMIT EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff J.D.F. (Plaintiff) has issued a subpoena to nonparty Name.com, Inc. seeking the registrant information for the web domain sar.network, the website for judgment debtor Sino American Reunion. (Motion Exh. A.) Name.com has failed to comply with this subpoena.

A previous motion for expedited discovery on a similar basis was denied for failure to meet the conditions for obtaining discovery of anonymous online identifying information: First, “if the defendant has not received notice of the attempt to lift the shield of anonymity, the plaintiff must make reasonable efforts to provide such notice.” (Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 623, 634.) Second, “the plaintiff should not be able to discover the speaker's identity without first making a prima facie showing that the speech in question is actionable.” (Id. at p. 635.) The showing must be sufficient to support a ruling in the plaintiff’s favor. (See ibid.)

In the present motion, Plaintiff contends that the owner of the sar.network website lacks any privacy interest in their identity as the registrant thereof. (Motion at p. 7.) Plaintiff argues that it is possible Name.com will delete the relevant information in the near future. (Motion at pp. 7–8.)

Plaintiff here submits various declarations to support his claims as to sar.network, the website in question. Plaintiff declares that the website identifies itself as the home of judgment debtor the Sino American Reunion. (Plaintiff Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff declares that the other defendants have “sent threats, posted private texts messages and engaged in other types of anti-social behavior on the aforesaid website.” (Plaintiff Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff cites the website’s posting of false information related to his association with SAR and “doxing” his identity as the conduct for which the information is sought. (Motion at pp. 5–6.) A domain investigation reveals that nonparty Name.com, Inc. is the registrar of the site, but the identity of its registrant is redacted from these records. (Plaintiff Decl. Exh. A.) Plaintiff presents the declaration of Stephen Rotella, a private investigator, who says that he attempted to contact the “founding members” and names of “steering committee” members listed on sar.network, but was unable to locate most of them. (Rotella Decl. ¶¶ 9–13.) He was able to contact one Shaohai Guo, listed on the steering committee, but who denied being on the steering committee, and stated that he did not know who owned the website. (Rotella Decl. ¶¶ 13–15.) Thus the subpoena remains the best way to secure registrant information sought. (Rotella Decl. ¶ 20.)

Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that he seeks the requested information for good cause and based on a prima-facie showing of wrongful doxing, and lacks alternative means of obtaining it. Additionally, Plaintiff has attempted to contact the interested parties to provide notice that the information is being sought. The motion is therefore GRANTED.[1]