Taylor v. Doe
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-03398
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 26
In Taylor v. Doe, Judge Vyskocil granted permission for plaintiffs to subpoena five providers seeking Jane Doe’s identity before ordinary discovery began.
The order affected the plaintiffs, who received permission to issue subpoenas seeking Jane Doe’s identifying information, and Verizon, Eonix (Serverhub), M247, Performive, and Google, which were named as subpoena recipients.
What happened
In Taylor v. Doe, the plaintiffs sued an unidentified Jane Doe over allegedly defamatory articles posted on Medium. They had obtained internet addresses and email addresses from Medium but still did not know Doe’s identity or where to serve the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs asked to subpoena Verizon, Eonix, M247, Performive, and Google before the usual discovery conference. They said the information was needed only to identify Doe and serve the complaint, and explained their efforts to obtain the information from the providers.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the plaintiffs permission to issue the five subpoenas. She directed them to update the court by December 22, 2020, if they had not identified and served Doe by December 15; the order did not decide whether the postings were defamatory or resolve the underlying lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-03398
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 29, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs brought a defamation action against Jane Doe because they did not know Doe’s identity. They said Doe used the Medium accounts @kittykat97, also identified as @kittykat, and @Edmnation2020, also identified as @Edmnation, to post allegedly defamatory articles. The plaintiffs were represented by counsel and included Deborah Taylor a/k/a Holly T, Matthew Kramer a/k/a Disco Killerz, and Reem Taoz a/k/a GATTUSO.
The court had previously allowed the plaintiffs to issue a third-party subpoena to Medium before the parties’ required discovery conference. Medium eventually provided limited information, including internet protocol addresses and two Gmail addresses. The plaintiffs said further investigation linked the addresses to Verizon, Eonix (Serverhub), M247, and Performive, and that Google could provide information about the Gmail accounts.
The plaintiffs contacted the providers. Eonix directed them to send a subpoena, Verizon requested more specific information and said it needed a court order, M247 did not respond to the plaintiffs’ attempted contacts, and Performive had not responded. The plaintiffs therefore sought permission to issue four subpoenas to the internet providers and one subpoena to Google. They said the subpoenas sought identifying information only, so they could identify Doe and serve the summons and complaint.
Ruling
The court granted the plaintiffs leave, based on their representations and the proposed subpoenas, to issue third-party subpoenas to Verizon, Eonix (Serverhub), M247, Performive (formerly Total Server Solutions), and Google. The order did not itself identify Doe, require the providers to produce information beyond the subpoenas’ terms, or decide the merits of the defamation claim.
The court also ordered that, if the plaintiffs had not identified and served Doe with the summons and complaint by December 15, 2020, they were to file a letter updating the court by December 22, 2020, about the investigation and their efforts to identify and serve Doe.
Effect of the Order
The order authorized early third-party discovery before the usual Rule 26(f) conference. It addressed the plaintiffs’ efforts to identify and serve the unknown defendant, not whether the online statements were defamatory or whether Doe was legally responsible for them.
Read the full 26-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.