Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 24STCV12559, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING.  The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 24STCV12559    Hearing Date: November 12, 2024    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   November 12, 2024                                       

CASE NAME:           Eunbi Kim v. DOES 1 through 20

CASE NO.:                24STCV12559

MOTION FOR LIMITED-EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY:  Plaintiff Eunbi Kim

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Non-Party Respondent Microsoft Corporation; Non-Party Meta Platforms, Inc.

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An Order granting leave to engage in limited and expedited discovery against Non-party Deponents GMX, Google, Inc., Instagram, LLC, Microsoft, Inc., and Naver, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion for Limited-Expedited Discovery is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff may issue third-party subpoenas.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On May 20, 2024, Plaintiff Eunbi Kim (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against DOES 1 through 20 (Defendants) with four causes of action for: (1) Invasion of Privacy, (2) Unauthorized Access to Computers in Violation of California Penal Code § 502, et seq., (3) Conversion, and (4) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff recently experienced unauthorized access and password changes to her email and social media accounts. Plaintiff alleges Defendants hacked her accounts. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants broke into Plaintiff’s apartment and stole her personal belongings.

On July 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for limited-expedited discovery and served it on all non-parties.

On August 6, 2024, Plaintiff moved ex parte to advance the hearing date on the instant motion which was DENIED.

On October 29, 2024, Non-Party Respondent Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) filed a timely opposition.

On November 5, 2024, Non-Party Respondent Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta) filed an untimely opposition.

Replies were due on or before November 4, 2024. As of November 6, 2024, the court has not received replies.

LEGAL STANDARD:

“In civil litigation, discovery 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.)¿¿ 

Deposition notices may be served¿by¿a plaintiff¿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).)¿“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.210, subd. (b).)¿Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.210, subdivision (b)¿applies 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¿. .¿.”].)¿

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff contends the limited discovery is warranted because it is narrowly tailored to seek relevant information to identify the DOE Defendants and there is no other source where Plaintiff can obtain this information.

Microsoft opposes the motion in part. Microsoft opposes to the extent Plaintiff seeks a court order compelling production of records before receiving a court order allowing Plaintiff to serve the subpoena. Microsoft also argues that Plaintiff’s subpoena was defective for multiple reasons so there is no pending discovery for the court to compel.

Meta argues that Plaintiff improperly issued the subpoena without leave of court and there is no good cause to issue a compliant subpoena because Meta has nothing to produce because it has been unable to locate any valid accounts and Plaintiff appears to have access to these accounts.  

Here, no defendant has been served with the summons, nor has any defendant appeared in this case. This is because Plaintiff does not know the identity of the Doe Defendants and seeks, by way of the deposition subpoenas, to discover their identities. Microsoft does not oppose leave for Plaintiff to issue the subpoena. Meta, while preferring the court to rule on the merits now, reserves its right to object to a properly issued subpoena in the future. There is therefore good cause for Plaintiff to issue the subpoenas.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for limited-expedited discovery to issue the third-party subpoenas only.

CONCLUSION:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

1.      Motion for Limited-Expedited Discovery is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff may issue third-party subpoenas.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             November 12, 2024                __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court