Dyer v. DOES 1-10

Background

Min Ji Goo Dyer, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an ex parte application seeking permission to issue third-party subpoenas before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The court treated the application as primarily seeking permission to subpoena Google Inc. for identifying information related to telephone numbers and email accounts connected to the conduct alleged in Dyer’s complaint.

The court had previously allowed Dyer to issue subpoenas to certain entities and related entities that possessed the requested information. A response from Bandwidth stated that Google was the wholesale customer associated with telephone numbers 510-689-1529 and 216-202-5727, and that Google was likely to have identifying information for those numbers.

Ruling on the subpoena request

The court found that Dyer had shown “good cause”—a sufficient reason for allowing discovery before the normal schedule—to serve Google with a Rule 45 subpoena. The court authorized a subpoena seeking identifying information for accounts associated with telephone numbers 510-689-1529 and 216-202-5727. The authorized information included names, users, beneficiaries, Internet Service Provider addresses, identification documents, two-factor identification methods, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, telephone numbers, email addresses, residential or mailing addresses, account-opening and account-closing documents, and know-your-customer and anti-money-laundering information.

The court also allowed Dyer to subpoena Google’s corporate parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates if Google identified one of those related entities as possessing the requested information. The subpoena had to include a copy of the order and had to be served as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.

The court denied Dyer’s request for identifying information concerning telephone numbers 847-906-2745, 618-386-5007, and 512-843-1617 because those numbers were not covered by the earlier authorization and Dyer had not shown a sufficient connection to Google. The court also denied the request concerning the listed email accounts. It stated that Dyer had not sufficiently shown that the account owners were likely involved in the alleged fraudulent conduct, or, for some accounts, that Google maintained identifying information. The denial was without prejudice to a renewed application supported by additional evidence.

Notice, challenges, and use of information

Google was ordered to notify each person or entity whose identifying information was sought and provide that person or entity with the subpoena and the order within 30 days after service. Each affected person or entity would have 30 days after service to challenge the subpoena, including by asking the court to cancel or modify it. If no timely challenge was filed, Google would have 10 days to produce the responsive information or file its own challenge. Google also had to preserve the information while any timely challenge was pending.

The information disclosed under the authorized subpoena could be used only to protect Dyer’s rights concerning the claims in her complaint.

Privacy order and disposition

The court restricted public access to Dyer’s application because it listed full birth dates. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, filings may include only an individual’s birth year. The court ordered Dyer to file a redacted version showing only birth years within 30 days.

The court therefore granted in part and denied in part Dyer’s ex parte application for permission to serve third-party subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference, and separately ordered her to file the redacted application.