Stebbins v. Doe

Background

David A. Stebbins filed a complaint alleging ten counts of defamation against an anonymous YouTube user known as “SidAlpha.” Stebbins also sought permission to proceed without paying the usual filing fee and asked to subpoena YouTube LLC for information identifying and locating Defendant John Doe.

The court had previously denied Stebbins’s second motion for early discovery. It found that Stebbins had not established specific personal jurisdiction over Doe under the “effects” test from Calder v. Jones. That test asks whether the defendant committed an intentional act, expressly aimed it at the forum state, and caused harm the defendant knew was likely to be suffered there.

Motion for Reconsideration

Stebbins sought leave to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its prior denial. Under the Northern District of California’s local rule, leave to seek reconsideration may be based on a material difference in fact or law that could not reasonably have been known earlier, new material facts or a change in law, or the court’s manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented.

Stebbins argued that the court had failed to consider additional arguments supporting personal jurisdiction, including that Doe conducted substantial business in California through online platforms, that Stebbins’s reputational injury was felt primarily there, that some conduct described in the video occurred there, that the video was distributed there, and that Doe used California sources.

The court rejected those arguments. It explained that relationships with third-party companies headquartered in California do not by themselves show that Doe directed the alleged intentional acts toward California. The court also found that Stebbins had offered no evidence showing that Doe specifically targeted a California audience rather than having the video automatically available there through YouTube. It further declined to assume that people who supplied information through online platforms were located in California merely because the platforms were headquartered there.

The court also noted that Stebbins’s arguments about harm being felt primarily in California addressed the third part of the Calder test. Because Stebbins had not satisfied the second part—showing that the video was expressly aimed at California—the court did not reach the third part.

Disposition

The court concluded that Stebbins had not shown a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments in the earlier order. It therefore denied Stebbins’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The court granted Stebbins until March 4, 2024, to file a third motion for early discovery.