Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 24STCV26073, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Randolph M. Hammock, Case: 24STCV26073, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Marta Tejada alleges unknown Doe Defendants orchestrated a scheme connecting Plaintiff with famous soccer players. Plaintiff exchanged nude images and personal information with the Defendants, who then used them to impersonate Plaintiff on social media. Defendants also shared the images without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) invasion of privacy, (2) conversion, (3) civil harassment, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (6) declaratory and injunctive relief.

Instagram, LLC, Telegram Messenger, Inc., Callosum Software GmbH (d/b/a “Tellonym”), X, Corporation (f/k/a “Twitter”), Google, Inc., and Orange SA. Non-party Meta Platforms, Inc., opposed.

Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is given leave to reissue the subpoenas on the non-parties for the limited purpose of identifying the person(s) owning or operating the subject social media accounts.

Plaintiff alleges unknown Doe Defendants orchestrated a scheme purporting to connect Plaintiff with famous soccer players. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-13.) Believing she was communicating with the real athletes, Plaintiff exchanged nude images and personal information with the Defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 13-18.) Defendants then shared the images without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent and impersonated Plaintiff on social media. (Id. ¶¶ 25-35.)

The owners or operators of the social media accounts that target Plaintiff are unknown. To determine the identities of the Doe Defendants, Plaintiff issued several deposition subpoenas for production of business records (collectively “Subpoenas”) towards Non-party Deponents “to obtain basic subscriber information for certain users, accounts, or profiles.” (Mtn. 5: 18-22.) Upon receipt of the subpoenas, Non-party Deponents issued their objections and/or requested a formal court order. This motion followed.

Because the Doe Defendants have not been identified, they have not been served. Generally, “[t]he 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.” (CCP § 2025.210.) Therefore, it is this court’s understanding that Plaintiff is effectively moving to serve the deposition notice at “an earlier date.”

In opposition, non-Party Meta argues Plaintiff cannot compel compliance with the subpoena(s) already issued because Plaintiff did not obtain leave of court before serving them. Meta also argues Plaintiff should not be given leave to issue new subpoenas because Plaintiff has not established good cause for doing so. Meta contends that Plaintiff has failed to connect the majority of the accounts it seeks information from to Instagram—as opposed to other social networking sites not connected to Meta.

First, the court would agree with Meta that the pending subpoenas are invalid because they were served before service of summons and complaint on any Defendant and without a court order. (See CCP § 2025.210.)

But as to Plaintiff’s request to issue new subpoenas, Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for doing so. Where, as here, Plaintiff’s highly personal and private data may be spreading on the internet, it is sound policy that Plaintiff be given the opportunity to identify the Defendants at an early stage. That Plaintiff may not know precisely which accounts or usernames are affiliated with certain service providers evidences the need for discovery on this issue. To the extent Plaintiff seeks information from accounts that are not on Meta platforms (such as SnapChat), the non-parties may simply say so in response to the subpoenas.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is given leave to reissue the subpoenas on the non-parties for the limited purpose of identifying the person(s) owning or operating the subject social media accounts.