Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 25STCV01483, Date: 2025-05-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25STCV01483 Hearing Date: May 19, 2025 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: May 19, 2025 TRIAL DATE: NOT
SET
CASE: Justin Smith v. Does 1-20.
CASE NO.: 25STCV01483 
MOTION
FOR LIMITED EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Justin Smith
RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on
eCourt as of May 13, 2025
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is a defamation action that was filed on January 21, 2025. Plaintiff
alleges that he received direct messages on social media accusing him of sexual
misconduct and threatening him.
Plaintiff moves for limited
expedited discovery.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff moves for “expedited
discovery” as to non-parties Happn, Snap, Inc., Telegram Messenger, Inc., and 9
Count, Inc. with respect to third-party subpoenas for production of business
records. Although Plaintiff cites a
laundry list of statutes, none of Plaintiff’s citations pertain to the
requested relief of “limited expedited discovery.” (See Code Civ. Proc. §§
1987.1-1987.2 [compel compliance with subpoena]; 2020.030, 2020.220(c); 2020.410
[authorizing third-party subpoenas for records]; 2025.480 [motion to compel
compliance].) Nevertheless, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to compel
compliance with the propounded subpoenas, that relief is supported by the
statutes identified in the Notice of Motion.
Treating Plaintiff’s papers as a
motion to compel compliance with subpoenas, Plaintiff seeks to require the
identified third-party entities to produce records pertaining to the user
accounts identified in paragraph 14 of the verified Complaint to permit
Plaintiff to identify the Defendant or Defendants and serve them with process.
In defamation actions against anonymous speakers, a plaintiff seeking to compel
disclosure of a defendant’s identity must “make a prima facie evidentiary
showing of the elements of defamation, including falsity, before disclosure of
a defendant’s identity can be compelled.” (ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7
(2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 603, 633.) A claim for defamation requires the Plaintiff
to demonstrate the “intentional publication of a statement of fact that is
false, unprivileged, and has a natural tendency to injure or which causes
special damage.” (Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 645.) To
that end, the Court ordered supplemental briefing that (1) presented evidence tending
to establish the elements of Plaintiff’s defamation claim; (2) addressed the
application of the federal Secured Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(1),)
and (3) discussing whether the subpoenas seek the disclosure of private or
public communications as addressed in Facebook Inc. v. Superior Court (2018)
4 Cal.5th 1245, at 1250. (March 24, 2025 Minute Order.)
Although Plaintiff submitted
supplemental briefing, his papers fail to address the impact of the Secured
Communications Act or the application of Facebook Inc. v. Superior Court.
For that reason alone, the Court would be inclined to deny the motion.
Moreover, although Plaintiff asserts that the evidence in his declaration
demonstrates the elements of defamation, close reading belies that contention.
The bulk of Plaintiff’s evidence is a series of direct messages from the
username “Olivia” across several social media services, including Snapchat,
Wink, and the dating service Tinder, accusing Plaintiff of contracting herpes
and spreading it to various romantic partners, and threatening to disseminate
that information. (Plaintiff’s Exhs. C-E.) Plaintiff also produces evidence of
an unsolicited Telegram direct message by an unknown user employing a green
virion emoji. (Id. Exh. F.) The remaining communication is by a separate
user named “Selena” on the Happn dating service describing a picture posted by
Plaintiff on his profile as a “thirst trap.” (Id. Exh. B.)
Each of these communications is on
their face private messages between Plaintiff and other persons. While the
messages from “Olivia” are insulting and hostile in character, and the emoji
from the unknown user could arguably be read in the same light, Plaintiff
offers no evidence of any statements which were published to a third person. (Smith,
supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at 645 [publications must be communicated to a
third party to be actionable defamation].) Moreover, the message from “Selena”
lacks even the false and defamatory character of the other statements, lack of
publication notwithstanding. A description of a profile picture as a “thirst
trap”—a slang term meaning that it is intended to attract desire or attention
from the viewer—would be a non-actionable opinion in any context, let alone on
a dating service where attraction of desire and attention is in part the object
of the exercise. On this record, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has
established the elements of defamation such that any discovery should be
compelled. Plaintiff’s remaining arguments concerning other causes of action
are not germane to the motion at hand.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Limited Expedited Discovery is DENIED.
Moving Party to give notice.
//
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 19, 2025 ___________________________________
Theresa
M. Traber
Judge
of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the
tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day
before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It
should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still
conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you
have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you
should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an
order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.