Gentlesk v. Doe
ORDER granting 2 Motion for early Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 11/16/12. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(bsw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-587-FDW-DCK
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff’s “Motion For Order Authorizing
Early Discovery” (Document No. 2). This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully
considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will grant the motion.
Plaintiff Mary Gentlesk (“Plaintiff”) filed a “Complaint” (Document No. 1) on September
19, 2012, against Defendant John Doe (“Defendant”) alleging claims of “Libel Per Se” and “Libel
Per Quod.” Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant sent an email to eighteen (18) recipients
on April 28, 2012, that included false and defamatory comments, using the email address
firstname.lastname@example.org. (Document No. 1, p.2).
Plaintiff’s “Motion For Order Authorizing Early Discovery” (Document No. 2) was filed on
November 13, 2012. By the instant motion Plaintiff seeks early discovery to identify the actual
name and address of Defendant. (Document No. 2). Plaintiff asserts that the issuance of third party
subpoenas pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 is now necessary. Id. Plaintiff contends
that without issuing a subpoena to Yahoo!, Inc., she will be thwarted in her attempts to identify
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
is relevant to any party's claim or defense--including the existence,
description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any
documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of
persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter
involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible
at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The rules of discovery are to be accorded broad and liberal construction.
See Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979); and Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947).
In addition, the undersigned notes that relevant caselaw appears to support Plaintiff’s effort
to uncover the identity of Defendant John Doe. See Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-30,
2011 WL 2634166 at *3 (E.D.Va. July 1, 2011) (“Under 47 U.S.C.A § 551(c)(2)(B), an ISP can
disclose personal identification information of an internet user ‘pursuant to a court order authorizing
such disclosure, if the subscriber is notified of such order by the person to whom the order is
directed[.]’”); see also, Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-19, 551 F.Supp.2d 1, 6-7 (D.D.C. 2008).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion For Order Authorizing Early
Discovery” (Document No. 2) is GRANTED.
Signed: November 16, 2012
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?