Mirza v. Doe
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-06830
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mirza v. Doe, Judge Ramos granted expedited discovery to help identify the anonymous Yelp reviewer sued for alleged defamation and interference with contracts.
Dr. Muhammad Mirza and Allied Medical and Diagnostic Services, LLC may seek expedited third-party discovery to identify John Doe a/k/a Paul M., the Yelp user they sued. The ruling concerns discovery only and does not decide whether the alleged defamation or tortious interference occurred.
What happened
In Mirza v. Doe, Dr. Muhammad Mirza and Allied Medical and Diagnostic Services, LLC sued an unidentified Yelp user over allegedly false and damaging reviews. They claimed the reviews harmed their business and interfered with relationships with patients, customers, and vendors.
The plaintiffs asked to obtain information from Yelp and potentially other internet and email providers before the usual discovery conference. They said subpoenas were necessary to learn the defendant’s identity and argued that they had shown an initial, legally sufficient case for defamation and tortious interference with contracts.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the application for expedited discovery. The ruling allows the plaintiffs to seek information needed to identify and contact the defendant so they can amend the complaint and serve that person.
The detailed version
- Mirza v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-06830
- Edgardo Ramos
- Sept. 14, 2020
Background
Dr. Muhammad Mirza and Allied Medical and Diagnostic Services, LLC sued John Doe, also identified in the caption as Paul M., a Yelp user whose name had not yet been determined. The plaintiffs alleged claims for defamation and tortious interference with contract based on reviews posted on Yelp. They alleged that the reviews contained false, misleading, disparaging, and defamatory statements, including an accusation that Dr. Mirza was “up sell[ing]” patients. They further alleged that patients or prospective patients refused to begin or continue doing business with them because of the reviews.
The plaintiffs stated that the review did not provide contact information for the defendant and that Yelp would not provide customer information without a subpoena. They therefore sought permission to serve third-party subpoenas on Yelp and possibly internet-service and email providers to obtain information identifying the defendant.
Request for Expedited Discovery
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 generally requires parties to meet and confer before discovery begins, but it permits early discovery when authorized by court order. The plaintiffs argued that “good cause” supported early discovery because they could not identify the defendant without subpoenas and could not obtain relief against the alleged misconduct without learning who the defendant was.
The plaintiffs also argued that they had established a prima facie case, meaning an initial showing that could support their claims if proven. For defamation, they identified the alleged false statement, publication to third parties, fault, and injury. They also alleged that the reviews directly caused patients or prospective patients to stop doing business with them.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos marked the application “granted.” The order therefore gave the plaintiffs leave to conduct expedited discovery aimed at learning the defendant’s identity and contact information. The opinion does not state that any subpoena had already been issued, identify the specific discovery limits beyond the request described, or decide the ultimate merits of the defamation or tortious-interference claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.