Stebbins v. Doe

Background

Self-represented plaintiff David A. Stebbins filed a complaint against John Doe. He first sought permission to subpoena Google LLC to learn Doe’s identity and address. After the court denied that request without prejudice because it did not address required factors, Stebbins filed a notice identifying Doe as Sidney Redfield and giving a likely address in Sandpoint, Idaho.

The court then ordered Stebbins to explain why venue—the proper federal court location for the case—was in the Northern District of California and why the court should not recommend dismissal without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate district. In his response, Stebbins said there was a possibility that he had identified the wrong person and that he might not know Doe’s identity or location after all. He also speculated that Doe might live in California.

Motions

Stebbins moved for permission to serve process by email and for sanctions against Doe. The court noted that cases allowing email service generally involved foreign defendants or evidence that a defendant could not be located or served through other means despite reasonable and diligent efforts.

The court denied email service. Stebbins did not allege that Doe was outside the United States and did not show reasonable diligence in attempting other methods of service. The court also found that Doe’s alleged refusal to confirm his identity or provide personal information did not establish that he was evading service. The court therefore denied Stebbins’s motion for sanctions as well, finding no legal basis for sanctions on these facts and no evidence of evasion.

Required next filing

Because Stebbins again claimed not to know Doe’s identity or location, the court incorporated its prior instructions concerning a third-party subpoena. Those instructions required briefing and evidence addressing specified factors before Stebbins could seek permission to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required discovery conference.

The court ordered Stebbins to submit a new subpoena request by September 13, 2023. If it did not receive one by that date, the court said it would screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the statute governing review of complaints filed by people who are not paying the filing fee. The order denied the motions for email service and sanctions but did not itself dismiss the complaint or resolve the venue issue.