Campos v. DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-05781
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Campos v. DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Judge White granted in part limited discovery to identify who allegedly accessed Campos’s T-Mobile account.
Allison Campos may conduct limited pre-conference discovery from T-Mobile to seek information identifying the unknown defendants. The requests involving Merrill Lynch and Verizon were denied without prejudice.
What happened
In Campos v. DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Allison Campos alleged that unknown defendants hacked telephone and financial accounts and asked to subpoena three companies for identifying internet addresses.
The court found that the complaint gave enough detail about unauthorized access to Campos’s T-Mobile account to support limited discovery, but was largely conclusory about her Merrill Lynch and Verizon accounts. The court also found that claims involving those accounts appeared too late under the applicable time limits.
Judge Jeffrey White granted the discovery application in part, allowing Campos to serve the proposed subpoena on T-Mobile. The court denied the rest of the application without prejudice, allowing Campos to renew requests involving Merrill Lynch and Verizon if she amends her complaint to address the time limits.
The detailed version
- Campos v. DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE · No. 4:22-cv-05781
- Jeffrey White
- Oct. 26, 2022
Background
Allison Campos alleged that certain telephone and financial accounts were hacked. She asserted claims against unknown defendants under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g), California’s Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California Penal Code § 502, and for invasion of privacy. She sought permission to conduct limited discovery before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference by subpoenaing T-Mobile U.S., Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., and Merrill Lynch & Co. for internet protocol addresses that had accessed her accounts.
Court’s Analysis
Before allowing discovery to identify unknown defendants, the court considered whether Campos’s complaint could withstand a motion to dismiss. The court noted that a conclusory pleading would not satisfy that requirement. Although Campos provided dates for the alleged hacking, the court found that the complaint’s specific allegations concerned only unauthorized access to her T-Mobile account and that the remainder was largely conclusory.
The court stated that the limitations period was two years for the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and invasion-of-privacy claims, and three years for the California claim. Because Campos did not allege that she discovered damage after being informed of the intrusions, the court found that, on the face of the complaint, claims concerning unauthorized access to her Merrill Lynch and Verizon accounts appeared time-barred. The court nevertheless found that Campos had tried to identify whoever accessed the T-Mobile account, that an actual person likely committed that conduct, and that the requested discovery was likely to identify the defendants currently named as Does.
Disposition
Judge Jeffrey White granted the application in part and permitted Campos to issue the subpoena to T-Mobile. The court denied the remainder of the application without prejudice. It stated that Campos could renew requests for subpoenas to Merrill Lynch and Verizon if she amended her complaint to show that claims concerning those accounts would not be barred by the statutes of limitations. The court also ordered Campos to issue and personally serve the proposed T-Mobile subpoena, along with a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.