Andersen v. Thompson
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-08244
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Andersen v. Thompson, Magistrate Judge Ryu denied early subpoena discovery without prejudice and denied a shortened motion date as moot.
Barbara Andersen’s request for early discovery was denied without prejudice, while her request for a shortened motion date was denied as moot. The order concerned proposed discovery directed to Verizon to help locate Gregory A. Thompson; it did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
What happened
In Andersen v. Thompson, Barbara Andersen asked to issue a subpoena to Verizon for information about Gregory A. Thompson’s phone number and current address before the normal discovery process began. She said Thompson was avoiding the lawsuit and service of the complaint.
The court found that Andersen had not shown good cause for this early discovery. Her factual claims were not supported as required by the court’s local rules, and she did not explain why the requested information was reasonably likely to help serve Thompson.
Magistrate Judge Ryu denied the subpoena request without prejudice, meaning the request could be made again, and denied the request for a shortened motion date as moot. The order did not decide the underlying copyright, privacy, emotional-distress, or defamation claims.
The detailed version
- Andersen v. Thompson · No. 4:21-cv-08244
- Yvonne Rogers
- Dec. 22, 2021
Background
Barbara Andersen sued Gregory A. Thompson and Google LLC, asserting claims under the Copyright Act, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The opinion states that Thompson had not been served and had not appeared.
Andersen asked for permission to conduct early discovery by subpoenaing Verizon for information related to Thompson’s phone number. She sought information to locate Thompson and his girlfriend at a current address. She also asked for a shortened motion date.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) generally bars discovery before the parties hold the required initial conference unless the court authorizes it. Courts in the Ninth Circuit generally use a “good cause” standard, weighing the need for expedited discovery against potential prejudice to the responding party.
The court found that Andersen had not shown good cause on the record before it. Her motion included factual assertions but did not comply with Local Rule 7-5(a), which requires factual contentions supporting a motion to be backed by an affidavit or declaration and appropriate record references. Because of that deficiency, the court could not evaluate the sufficiency of the steps she had taken to locate Thompson. The opinion describes those steps as an unsuccessful skip trace and a request for information from YouTube.
The court also found that Andersen did not explain why the proposed subpoena was reasonably likely to produce information that would allow service of the summons and complaint on Thompson.
Disposition
The court denied Andersen’s motion for leave to issue the subpoena before the required Rule 26(f) conference without prejudice. It denied the motion for a shortened motion date as moot. The court stated that any future request for early discovery must demonstrate good cause. The order did not reach the merits of Andersen’s underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.