Stebbins v. Doe

Background

David A. Stebbins filed a complaint alleging ten defamation counts against John Doe, an anonymous YouTube user known as “SidAlpha.” Stebbins alleged that Doe was part of YouTube’s Partner Program and that YouTube or Google had Doe’s legal name and current address. He sought permission to serve a subpoena on YouTube LLC to obtain that information. The opinion notes that the proposed subpoena was addressed to Google LLC, although the motion asked for a subpoena to YouTube LLC.

Stebbins was representing himself. The court had previously denied an earlier request for the same type of discovery without prejudice and instructed him to address the factors identified in Columbia Insurance Co. v. seescandy.com. Stebbins then filed the motion addressed in this order.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 generally provides for discovery after the parties’ required planning conference, but a court may allow discovery earlier when appropriate. The party seeking early discovery must show good cause. The court applied factors concerning whether the plaintiff has identified a real defendant who can be sued in federal court, described prior efforts to locate the defendant, shown that the complaint can survive a motion to dismiss, and demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the defendant can be served.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the motion did not comply with Local Rule 7-5(a), which requires factual assertions supporting a motion to be supported by an affidavit or declaration and appropriate record references. Stebbins stated that he had searched for SidAlpha’s address using Spokeo and BeenVerified but acknowledged that he could not be completely certain the results were accurate. The court found that, without admissible evidence supporting those assertions, it could not evaluate some of the required factors.

The court also concluded that Stebbins had not shown that the court likely had personal jurisdiction over John Doe. General jurisdiction was not established because Stebbins provided no facts showing that Doe was domiciled in California. Specific jurisdiction was also not established. Although posting a video could qualify as an intentional act, the complaint did not allege facts showing that the video was expressly aimed at California. The fact that YouTube was described as a California website was not enough; the court reasoned that a defendant’s use of a third-party internet company does not, by itself, show that the defendant targeted California.

Because Stebbins did not show that Doe could be sued in this court, he also did not show that the action could withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court therefore did not reach the separate question of whether harm in California was foreseeable.

Disposition

The court denied Stebbins’s second motion for early discovery without prejudice. The order did not decide the defamation claims. It stated that the case could not proceed without identifying and serving John Doe. Unless Stebbins filed a third motion for early discovery by December 15, 2023, the court stated that it would issue a report and recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.