Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 5, 2020

Mirza v. John Does 1-4

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:20-cv-01205
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mirza v. John Does 1-4, Judge Vyskocil granted expedited discovery from Google to identify Doe #3.

Who this affects

Dr. Muhammad Mirza and Allied Medical and Diagnostic Services, LLC may seek limited identifying information from Google about John Doe #3; the order does not decide the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.

What happened

In Mirza v. John Does 1-4, Dr. Muhammad Mirza and Allied Medical and Diagnostic Services, LLC sued unidentified defendants over allegedly false Yelp reviews, claiming defamation and interference with business relationships.

The plaintiffs said Yelp provided Doe #3’s submitted name, internet address, and Gmail address, but the name appeared fake and the other information did not identify the person. They asked to subpoena Google for identifying and contact information, excluding email contents.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the request and ordered that the plaintiffs could conduct expedited discovery from Google. The order allowed the plaintiffs to try to identify and serve Doe #3 and amend their complaint.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Mirza v. John Does 1-4 · No. 1:20-cv-01205
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Aug. 5, 2020

Background

The plaintiffs, Dr. Muhammad Mirza and Allied Medical and Diagnostic Services, LLC, brought claims for defamation and tortious interference against John Does #1-4 based on allegedly false and defamatory reviews posted on Yelp. The plaintiffs had previously received permission to seek expedited discovery—early discovery allowed before the normal schedule when needed to identify an unknown defendant.

The plaintiffs served Yelp with a subpoena. Yelp provided information concerning Doe #3, including a user-submitted name, the internet address associated with the review, and the reviewer’s Gmail address. The plaintiffs said the submitted name appeared to be fake, and that the internet address suggested either that the reviewer was outside the country when posting or had used a virtual private network to conceal the reviewer’s identity. The plaintiffs said their efforts using business records and other available resources had not identified Doe #3.

Request for Google discovery

The plaintiffs asked for permission to serve Google with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. They sought information and documents, excluding the contents of email communications, that could reveal Doe #3’s identity and contact information. They argued that Google likely had information that Yelp did not and that, without it, they could not identify or serve Doe #3 or continue the action.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery from Google. The order permitted the plaintiffs to seek information necessary to learn Doe #3’s identity and contact information, so they could amend the complaint and serve the identified defendant. The order addressed discovery only; the opinion does not decide whether the plaintiffs’ defamation or tortious-interference claims are legally valid.

Disposition

Granted. So ordered.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.