Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 24STCV14779, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV14779    Hearing Date: November 26, 2024    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   November 26, 2024                                       

CASE NAME:           Sarah Farnam v. DOES 1 through 20

CASE NO.:                24STCV14779

MOTION FOR LIMITED EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY:  Plaintiff Sarah Farnam

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Non-party Google, LLC

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An Order granting leave to engage in limited and expedited discovery.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion for leave to conduct limited-expedited discovery is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff Sarah Farnam (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants DOES 1 through 20 (Defendants) with four causes of action for: (1) Invasion of Privacy, (2) Conversion, (3) Unauthorized Access to Computers in Violation of Cal. Penal Code § 502, et seq., and (4) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

According to the Complaint, Defendants accessed Plaintiff’s computer network without authorization. Plaintiff further alleges she identified Defendants’ IP addresses but not their identifies.

On July 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for limited-expedited discovery. On November 13, 2024, Non-Party Google, LLC filed an opposition. On November 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.

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. Google opposes the motion to the extent it seeks to compel compliance with the already-issued subpoena. Google also argues that Plaintiff has not shown good cause to issue a subpoena because the subpoena failed to sufficiently identify a Google account.[1] Plaintiff does not address Google’s concerns on reply but reiterates that she has no other way to obtain Defendants’ identities than via the subpoenas.

Here, leave to conduct limited-expedited discovery is warranted. First, 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. Second, Plaintiff can address Google’s concerns regarding lack of sufficient information in the subpoena by issuing new subpoenas. It does not appear to the court that Google contends Plaintiff lacks good cause for any other reason. Finally, no other non-party deponent has filed an opposition.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct limited-expedited discovery.

CONCLUSION:

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

1.      Motion for leave to conduct limited-expedited discovery is GRANTED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             November 26, 2024                __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court