Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV05561, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV05561    Hearing Date: September 30, 2024    Dept: 34

Jeffrey Brown v. Does 1-20 (24STCV05561)

Plaintiff Jeffrey Brown’s Motion for Limited-Expedited Discovery is GRANTED. Plaintiff may serve or conduct discovery against Charter Communications to obtain necessary information, but only to the extent necessary to identify and locate Doe Defendants.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jeffrey Brown (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On March 10, 2021, Plaintiff’s LastPass account associated with jeffdbrown@hotmail.com experienced unauthorized access and password changes. As a result, Plaintiff was concern over the security of his personal information.

On December 1, 2023, additional unauthorized activities were uncovered on Plaintiff’s ADT alarm system account which involves the security of two properties. On January 2024, Plaintiff discovered a data breach associated with Plaintiff’s email account wendy@wendybrown.net.

Plaintiff also investigated financial irregularities linked to Plaintiff’s USAA accounts which included fraudulent charges and unauthorized transactions between February 1, 2023 and March 30, 2023. Additionally, on May 22, 2021, there was an unauthorized hotel charge on Plaintiff’s USAA account.

Moreover, there has been indications of data breaches on Plaintiff’s iPhones, MacBooks, and iCloud accounts which leads Plaintiff to believe that his email account under mynameiswendygbrown@icloud.com has also been compromised.

Plaintiff has reported and obtained photo evidence of drone surveillance over his residence.

Plaintiff requires the need for further investigation of third-party service providers to identify and locate Defendants Does 1-20 (“Doe Defendants”).

On August 20, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel issued a deposition subpoena for production of business records to Charter Communications to obtain information that would help identify Doe Defendants.

On August 26, 2024, Charter Communications submitted its response and requested a court order. As a result, Plaintiff filed this Motion, and requests leave to engage in limited-expedited discovery.

On March 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting the following causes of action against Doe Defendants:

1.           Fraud;

2.           Invasion of Privacy;

3.           Conversion;

4.           Unauthorized Access to Computers in Violation of California Penal Code § 502; and

5.           Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

No Doe amendments have been filed and no Doe Defendants have appeared yet.

On August 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Limited-Expedited Discovery. As of September 20, 2024, no opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Discovery against non-parties is generally governed by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2020.010 et seq.  “[D]iscovery may be obtained from a nonparty only through a ‘deposition subpoena.’” (Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader¿(2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 127.)¿“The Civil Discovery Act . . . authorizes a nonparty’s ‘oral deposition,’ ‘written deposition,’ and ‘deposition for [the] production of business records.’ (Ibid.)¿¿  

There is a general discovery provisions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.210, which apply to all discovery by deposition, including business records subpoenas to nonparties.  (Cal. Shellfish v. United Shellfish Co.¿(1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 16, 25 [“We conclude that the deposition hold in section 2025, subdivision (b)(2) does apply to a deposition subpoena seeking business records”]; see also O'Grady v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1423, 1454 [“Not having yet named any defendant, and a fortiori having served none, Apple needed leave of court before it could propound discovery from petitioners or anyone else”].) 

A plaintiff generally may serve deposition notices without leave of court 20 days after the “service of the summons on, or appearance by, any defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.210, subd. (b).)¿ However, 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. (Ibid.) “[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.)

DISCUSSION

The Court finds Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for obtaining leave to serve discovery on Charter Communications. Plaintiff has outlined how he has been injured by Doe Defendants. (Compl., ¶¶ 9-23.) Additionally, Plaintiff has carried out investigation that make it clear that Plaintiff needs information to identify and locate the Doe Defendants in this action and that Charter Communications has at least some of that information. (Motion, 4:7-14, 7:12-19, Exh. A.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion, but only to the extent necessary for Plaintiff to identify and locate Doe Defendants.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Jeffrey Brown’s Motion for Limited-Expedited Discovery is GRANTED. Plaintiff may serve or conduct discovery against Charter Communications to obtain necessary information, but only to the extent necessary to identify and locate Doe Defendants.