Stebbins v. Doe
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:23-cv-00321
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Stebbins v. Doe, Judge Ryu granted IFP status but denied without prejudice a subpoena request for information identifying the anonymous defendant.
David A. Stebbins’s ability to obtain early discovery from Google LLC was affected. The order also concerned the anonymous defendant identified as John Doe, but it did not resolve the defamation claims against that defendant.
What happened
Stebbins v. Doe concerns David A. Stebbins’s defamation claims against an anonymous YouTube user called “SidAlpha.” Stebbins sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and asked to subpoena Google LLC for information identifying John Doe.
The court granted Stebbins’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. It also considered his request to obtain the Doe defendant’s name, address, internet addresses, and telephone numbers from Google before the parties’ required discovery conference.
The court denied the subpoena request without prejudice, explaining that Stebbins had not addressed the required factors for early discovery. The court said a renewed request must include supporting legal argument and evidence. Judge Ryu also stated that the complaint would be screened if no renewed subpoena request was filed by June 12, 2023.
The detailed version
- Stebbins v. Doe · No. 3:23-cv-00321
- Maxine Chesney
- May 22, 2023
Background
David A. Stebbins alleged that an anonymous YouTube user known as “SidAlpha” posted a video on February 12, 2022, that defamed him. He asserted ten defamation counts. The defendant was identified in the case as John Doe. Stebbins sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and asked for permission to serve Google LLC with a subpoena seeking the Doe defendant’s name, current address, internet addresses used during the previous two years, and telephone numbers used during that period.
Legal standard
The court explained that federal law requires ongoing screening of a case filed without payment of the filing fee. The court may dismiss such a case if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court had not yet screened Stebbins’s complaint.
Because the requested subpoena sought discovery before the parties’ required conference, Stebbins needed the court’s authorization. The court applied the “good cause” standard used in the Ninth Circuit for early discovery. It identified four relevant considerations: whether the plaintiff described the unknown defendant specifically enough to show that the defendant could be sued in federal court; what steps the plaintiff had taken to locate the defendant; whether the claims could survive a motion to dismiss; and whether discovery was reasonably likely to identify the defendant so that service could occur.
Rulings
The court granted Stebbins’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. It denied the petition for permission to issue the subpoena without prejudice to refiling the request. The court found that the petition did not address any of the four identified factors. It stated that a new request must include legal briefing and evidence addressing those deficiencies.
The court also stated that it would screen the complaint after ruling on the subpoena request. If it did not receive a new subpoena request by June 12, 2023, it would screen the complaint based on the existing record. The order did not decide whether Stebbins’s defamation claims were legally sufficient.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.