Mirza v. Doe
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-06329
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mirza v. Doe, Judge Schofield allowed limited expedited discovery so Plaintiffs could identify and serve the unknown defendant.
Dr. Muhammad Mirza and Allied Medical and Diagnostic Services, LLC, Yelp, Inc., and the unidentified John Doe defendant.
What happened
In Mirza v. Doe, Dr. Muhammad Mirza and Allied Medical and Diagnostic Services, LLC sought permission to obtain information identifying the John Doe defendant before the usual discovery conference. They wanted to subpoena Yelp, Inc., which might have the defendant’s information.
The court found that the plaintiffs showed good cause for expedited discovery because they appeared unable to identify or serve the defendant without it. The court authorized a subpoena seeking only the defendant’s name and address.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield prohibited the plaintiffs from seeking the defendant’s email address, telephone number, or other information, and limited use of the information to identifying and serving the defendant. The order also set deadlines for serving Yelp, filing proof of service, and seeking or responding to a protective order.
The detailed version
- Mirza v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-06329
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 2, 2020
Background
Dr. Muhammad Mirza and Allied Medical and Diagnostic Services, LLC, the plaintiffs, sued a defendant identified as John Doe. They moved for expedited discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) to learn the defendant’s identity. Specifically, they sought permission to serve Yelp, Inc. with a subpoena under Rule 45.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that, before the usual Rule 26(f) discovery conference, courts apply a flexible standard requiring reasonableness and good cause when deciding whether to permit expedited discovery. The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied that standard. The plaintiffs sought the defendant’s identity and contact information, and appeared unable to identify or serve the defendant without the requested discovery.
Ruling and Requirements
The court authorized the plaintiffs to serve Yelp with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking only the defendant’s name and address. The plaintiffs may not subpoena Yelp for the defendant’s email address, telephone number, or any other information. Any information disclosed may be used only to obtain enough information to identify and serve the defendant.
The order required the plaintiffs to serve Yelp with a copy of the order and the subpoena and file an affidavit of service by September 9, 2020. Yelp could file a motion for a protective order instead of complying by October 20, 2020; the plaintiffs could respond by October 27, 2020, and no reply could be filed without court authorization. The clerk was directed to close docket entry number 4.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.