Maude v. DOES 1 through 10

Background

Erin K. Maude previously sought permission to obtain discovery before formally serving the unknown defendants. The court denied that request without prejudice after finding that she had not shown good cause. After Maude filed an amended complaint, she renewed her request and asked to serve three document subpoenas: one on Comcast Cable Communications LLC, one on Apple Inc., and one on Epic Systems Corporation. The court held a hearing on the renewed motion on March 8, 2022.

The court noted that the amended complaint addressed deficiencies identified in the earlier order and that Maude sufficiently described her prior efforts to identify and locate the missing defendants. The court nevertheless applied the requirement that pre-service discovery be reasonably likely to produce information identifying a missing defendant so that service of process can be completed.

Comcast subpoena

The proposed Comcast subpoena sought documents identifying the customer using Internet Protocol address 98.234.10.23 since February 1, 2021, including the associated name, address, telephone number, email address, and Media Access Control address. The materials supported Maude’s contention that someone using that Internet Protocol address had accessed her Microsoft email account without authorization on or before February 19, 2021.

The court found the request insufficiently supported in several respects. Maude did not provide information showing that the Internet Protocol address was likely associated with an unknown defendant rather than being a public address or one used by multiple unrelated people or entities. She also did not explain why records were needed for more than one year when the unauthorized access occurred on an unspecified date or dates on or before February 19, 2021. Finally, she did not explain why information beyond the Comcast subscriber’s name and physical address was needed to serve process.

Apple subpoena

The proposed Apple subpoena sought all documents identifying every person who had logged in to Maude’s Apple ID account since January 1, 2022, including Internet Protocol and Media Access Control addresses. The court found that the supporting materials supported Maude’s contention that an unknown person or entity had gained unauthorized access to some of her Apple account.

The court nevertheless found that the subpoena was not limited to records necessary to identify the missing defendants. Maude did not explain why she needed all documents identifying every person who had logged in since January 1, 2022, particularly because the unauthorized access appeared to have occurred before that date. Although Maude relied on a technical consultant’s declaration, she did not explain what information Apple had or how it would be used to identify a defendant for service of process.

Epic subpoena

The proposed Epic subpoena sought all documents identifying every person who had logged in to Maude’s MyChart account since January 1, 2022, including Internet Protocol and Media Access Control addresses. The materials supported Maude’s contention that an unknown person or entity had accessed her medical records through MyChart, an application hosted by or for her healthcare provider.

The court found that Maude had not established when the access occurred; she stated only that she discovered it on February 7, 2022. As with the Apple subpoena, the Epic subpoena was not limited to information necessary to identify the defendants. Maude did not explain why she needed records about every person who had logged in since January 1, 2022, or how the requested information would identify a defendant for service of process.

Disposition

The court denied the renewed application without prejudice. It stated that any further application for pre-service discovery must attach the proposed subpoenas and show, for each subpoena, how the requested discovery is limited to information necessary to identify and serve the unknown defendants. The order did not decide the merits of Maude’s underlying claims.