Grow Universe Inc. d/b/a Cafe Melo v. Doe
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-01861
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Grow Universe v. Doe, Judge Woods granted early discovery, allowing a subpoena to Google for information identifying an anonymous user.
Grow Universe Inc. may serve the authorized subpoena; Google must follow the order’s notice and response procedures; and the unidentified user may object to or seek to cancel the subpoena.
What happened
In Grow Universe Inc. d/b/a Café Melo v. Jane Doe, the plaintiff asked to obtain information about an unidentified user before the parties held their required initial conference.
The plaintiff sought permission to subpoena Google for the user’s name, address, internet address, email address, and phone number. The court found that the plaintiff showed a reasonable basis and good cause for obtaining the information early, even though the request was made without advance notice to the other side.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the plaintiff’s motion. The order gives Google and the identified user time to object or ask the court to cancel the subpoena, limits use of the information to protecting and enforcing the plaintiff’s rights in the complaint, and bars disclosure to others without further court permission. The order did not decide the merits of any possible future objection to the subpoena.
The detailed version
- Grow Universe Inc. d/b/a Cafe Melo v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-01861
- Gregory Woods
- Mar. 28, 2025
Background
Grow Universe Inc., doing business as Café Melo, asked for permission to serve Google LLC with a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena seeks information about a user previously identified by Google through a partially masked email address and phone number.
Legal standard
Rule 26(d) generally prevents a party from seeking discovery—information exchanged to develop evidence—before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court may authorize discovery earlier. Judge Woods applied a flexible reasonableness-and-good-cause standard, with especially careful review because the plaintiff requested expedited discovery without advance notice to the opposing party.
The court noted that the plaintiff relied on a test used in cases involving efforts to preserve an anonymous person’s identity. The court emphasized that anonymity and any future motion to cancel or limit the subpoena were not issues before it, and that the order was not a ruling on the merits of a possible future objection.
Ruling and terms of the order
The court found that the plaintiff satisfied the reasonableness and good-cause standard and granted the motion for leave to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference.
The order permits the plaintiff to serve Google with a subpoena seeking the anonymous user’s name, address, internet address, email address, and phone number. Plaintiff’s counsel must attach the order to the subpoena. Within seven days after service, Google must reasonably attempt to identify the user and provide the user with the subpoena and order. If Google cannot determine the user’s identity to a reasonable degree of technical certainty, it must notify the plaintiff’s counsel.
Google has 21 days after service to move to cancel the subpoena or otherwise object. The identified user has 14 days after receiving the subpoena from Google to do the same. If there is no objection, Google must produce the requested information within 21 days after notifying the user. The plaintiff may use the information only to protect and enforce its rights under the complaint, and the information may not be disclosed to anyone other than the plaintiff and its counsel without further court permission. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 7.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.