Lik v. Doe
- Donna Ryu
- 4:20-cv-00255
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Lik v. Doe, Judge Ryu denied without prejudice Lik’s request for early discovery to identify an anonymous Facebook user.
Peter Lik’s request to identify John Doe through an early subpoena to Facebook was denied without prejudice; the order did not decide the merits of Lik’s underlying claims.
What happened
In Lik v. Doe, Peter Lik sued an anonymous internet user who allegedly created a Facebook account impersonating him. Lik asked to subpoena Facebook before the usual discovery period to learn the user’s identity and pursue claims including copyright infringement, defamation, and false association.
The court required Lik to show good cause for early discovery, including a sufficient basis to believe the defendant could be sued in federal court. The court found that Lik had not shown a likely basis for personal jurisdiction in California. The only alleged connection was that the user acted through Facebook, whose business is located in the district, and the court said that connection was not enough.
Judge Ryu denied Lik’s motion for early discovery without prejudice. Because Lik failed to satisfy the first required factor, the court did not address the remaining factors.
The detailed version
- Lik v. Doe · No. 4:20-cv-00255
- Donna Ryu
- Apr. 27, 2020
Background
Peter Lik brought state and federal claims against an unidentified internet user, called John Doe, whom Lik alleged was impersonating him through a Facebook account using the name “Peter Lik.” Lik alleged that the account misled his collectors, potential customers, and fans and posted offensive material. His claims included copyright infringement, false association, defamation, false light, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
Lik asked for permission to serve Facebook with an early third-party subpoena to identify Doe. Normally, discovery cannot begin until the parties meet and confer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The court may allow earlier discovery when the plaintiff shows good cause.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the factors described in Columbia Insurance Co. v. seescandy.com. Those factors ask whether the plaintiff has identified a real and suable person or entity with sufficient specificity, described prior efforts to locate that party, shown that the case could survive a motion to dismiss, and shown a reasonable likelihood that discovery will produce information allowing service of process.
The court focused on the first factor. It explained that this factor helps ensure that federal jurisdiction and justiciability requirements can be met, including a likely basis for personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Lik’s complaint did not discuss personal jurisdiction. His motion asserted that Doe might be subject to jurisdiction in California because the alleged misconduct occurred through Facebook, whose business is located in the district.
The court found that this was insufficient. Lik cited no case holding that a person is subject to personal jurisdiction merely because the person used an online platform hosted by a business in the district. The court also noted that Lik’s investigation suggested the individual was likely located in Michigan, and that none of the other allegations plausibly established personal jurisdiction in California. Because Lik failed to satisfy the first factor, the court did not reach the other three.
Disposition
The court denied Lik’s motion for early discovery without prejudice. The order did not authorize Lik to issue the requested subpoena to Facebook.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.