Maycock v. Cloudfare, Inc.
- James Donato
- 3:24-cv-07102
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Maycock v. Cloudfare, Judge Donato quashed a subpoena seeking website operators’ identities but allowed a renewed request.
Daniel Lee Maycock, Cloudfare, Inc., and the non-party journalist identified as John Doe. The subpoena to Cloudfare was quashed, and the case was closed, while a renewed request for assistance was left available without prejudice.
What happened
Daniel Lee Maycock v. Cloudfare, Inc. involved Maycock’s request for information identifying the operators of the “Debunking Tamworth” website. Maycock, who represented himself, said the website published defamatory material about him and that he planned to bring a case in England. The court had previously authorized a subpoena to Cloudfare, Inc., which Maycock and Cloudfare had jointly requested.
A non-party journalist identified as John Doe moved to quash the subpoena because he wanted to keep his identity secret. The court said the record showed that multiple related disclosure proceedings were already underway in the United Kingdom. It also noted that courts in the United Kingdom were better positioned to decide questions about U.K. law and the parties’ disputes, and that the requested discovery might conflict with foreign evidence-gathering rules or policies.
Judge Donato quashed the subpoena, denied Doe’s requests for attorney’s fees and to submit new evidence, and closed the case because Maycock had asserted no independent legal claim. The court said its denial of assistance under the federal discovery statute was without prejudice to a renewed request if circumstances warranted.
The detailed version
- Maycock v. Cloudfare, Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-07102
- James Donato
- Sept. 30, 2025
Background
Daniel Lee Maycock, proceeding without a lawyer, applied under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for a subpoena directed to Cloudfare, Inc. Section 1782 allows a federal district court to order a person found in its district to produce evidence for use in a proceeding before a foreign or international tribunal. Maycock sought information identifying account holders associated with the domain “debunkingtamworth.com” between October 21, 2023, and December 23, 2024.
Maycock said that he was a British citizen and a former Deputy Mayor of Tamworth, that the “Debunking Tamworth” website had published defamatory content about him, and that he intended to bring defamation proceedings in the High Court of Justice in England after identifying the website’s operators. The court initially granted the request to issue the subpoena after Maycock and Cloudfare agreed that the statutory requirements were met.
Before Cloudfare responded, a non-party internet journalist identified as John Doe moved to quash the subpoena. Doe wrote for the “Debunking Tamworth” website and wanted to keep his identity secret. Cloudfare and Maycock agreed to stay Cloudfare’s response while the court considered Doe’s motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court said the subpoena had initially been properly granted. But the later filings showed that multiple related proceedings were already underway and that disclosure applications seeking evidence for a defamation claim had been filed under at least five case numbers in the United Kingdom. The court noted that Section 1782 gives a federal court discretion to provide assistance; it does not require the court to do so.
The court was concerned that the subpoena might conflict with foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies. It also identified other disputes that courts in the United Kingdom were better positioned to resolve, including whether a possible defamation case would be time-barred under U.K. law and factual questions about alleged harassment. Based on the more developed record, the court decided not to exercise its discretion to order the requested discovery.
Disposition
The court quashed the previously issued subpoena. It denied Doe’s request for attorney’s fees and request to submit new evidence. The court stated that its denial of assistance under Section 1782 was without prejudice to a renewed request if circumstances warranted. Because Maycock had asserted no legal claim independent of the request for a discovery order, the court closed the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.