5:24-mc-80285
N.D. Cal.Dec 19, 2024Background
- Seyeon In, a Korean influencer and streamer, filed a defamation lawsuit in Korea after an anonymous user on YouTube channel “PPKKa” allegedly made defamatory and damaging remarks about her.
- In cannot proceed with her lawsuit in Korea without identifying the anonymous user by name, address, and date of birth.
- She filed an ex parte application in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, seeking an order to subpoena Google LLC for user information related to the YouTube account.
- The requested discovery included a range of identifying information and access logs, as well as bank names and account numbers linked to Google Ads, AdSense, and Pay accounts associated with the user.
- The court considered whether the statutory and discretionary factors under § 1782 supported granting such discovery for use in the Korean lawsuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statutory factors for § 1782 are met | All statutory requirements are satisfied: Google is in the district, discovery is for use in foreign litigation, and Seyeon In is an interested party | (No appearance or argument from Google at this stage) | Statutory factors are satisfied |
| Whether the Intel discretionary factors favor discovery | Assistance is needed as Google is not subject to Korean court jurisdiction; Korean court would be receptive; no circumvention of Korean law | No evidence or arguments against receptivity or circumvention; no opposition submitted | Intel factors weigh in favor, except as to banking data |
| Whether the subpoena is unduly intrusive or burdensome | All requested information is necessary to identify the anonymous user, including banking info in case of false registration | Bank info is private, and no basis to assume fictitious registration; request is overbroad for current needs | Subpoena granted as to identity and logs; denied as to banking info |
| Whether the process should include notice to affected users | (Not directly argued) | (Not directly argued) | Notice and opportunity to move to quash must be given to account holders |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (sets out statutory and discretionary factors for granting discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782)
- Khrapunov v. Prosyankin, 931 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2019) (interprets requirements for § 1782 applications)