Petition to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records
June 17, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM LINE 9 26-CIV-03609 BRIGITTE DEITZ VS. META PLATFORMS, INC.
BRIGITTE DEITZ PRO SE META PLATFORMS, INC. JAMESON ULLMAN
Petition to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records
TENTATIVE RULING:
For the reasons stated below, petitioner Brigitte Deitz’s “Petition to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena, filed April 30, 2026, is DENIED.
A.
Background
Petitioner Brigitte Deitz alleges that she “is a litigant in an action pending in Arizona Superior Court, Case No. CV2025-034866. (April 30, 2026 Petition, ¶ 1.) Deitz alleges that she served a non-party subpoena on respondent Meta Platforms, Inc. in connection with that action. (Id., ¶ 3.) Deitz alleges that the “subpoena seeks records narrowly tailored to identify the author, administrators, custodians, control, and publication history relating to specific Facebook page content and related records relevant to the Arizona action” and that Meta “failed or refused to respond to or fully comply with the subpoena.” (Id., ¶¶ 3-5.)
Petitioner did not supply a copy of the subpoena. Respondent filed an opposition to which it attached the subpoena. (Declaration of Jameson Ullman in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Petition to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena [Ullman Decl.], exh. A.)
The subpoena “seeks the identity and account information of the Facebook Page administrator(s) or authorized user(s) responsible for creating and publishing the post made on December 19, 2024 on the Facebook Page titled ‘American Working Malinois Association- AWMA Historical Page.’ Meta Platforms, Inc. is ordered to produce: The identity of the individual(s) who created, authored, or published the December 19, 2024 post, including full legal name, email address(es), phone numbers, date of birth and other info associated with the administrator(s) or poster.” (Ullman Decl., exh. A., at p. 2, ¶ 2.)
The subpoena further states that “Good cause exists for the production of the documents, electronically stored information, or other things described in paragraph 2 for the following reasons: Good cause exists because the post published on December 19, 2024 on the ‘American Working Malinois Association-AWMA Historical Page’ contained false and defamatory professional, and personal harm to me and my husband. Identifying the administrator(s) or individuals responsible for creating and posting this content is essential to prosecuting the claim, effecting service, and pursuing available legal remedies.” (Ullman Decl., exh. A., at p. 2, ¶ 3.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
June 17, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ The subpoena further sought:
2. The account ID(s), profile ID (s), or business manager ID(s) associated with the Facebook Page Administrator (s) who had publishing permissions for the page on December 19, 2024.
3. All IP address logs for the creation and publication of the December 19, 2024 post, including:
a. Originating IP address b. Login IP addresses c. Timestamps of access d. Device Identifiers
4. All device metadata associated with the creation of the December 19, 2024 post, including:
a. Device Type b. Device ID c. Browser Identifiers d. Session identifiers
5. The Page’s administrator roster (names not required-account ID’s are sufficient) as of December 19, 2024, including roles (Admin, Editor, Moderator, etc)
6. A copy of the December 19, 2024 post, including:
a. Post content b. Images, comments, and edits c. Any deleted or modified components d. internal metadata and timestamps
(Ullman Decl., exh. A., at attachment 2.)
Following a meet and confer between petitioner and Meta, Meta stands by its objections and has refused to produce any of the requested documents. Meta objects on the following grounds.
Meta argues that the petition is untimely because it was not filed and served within 60 days of service of Meta’s objections to the subpoena, citing Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 127. Meta states that it served objections on February 12, 2026, and that the deadline to file and serve the petition was April 15, 2026, citing Code of Civil Procedure, section 2025.480, subdivision (b). (Ullman Decl., exh. A., email to “hunthorse@aol.com.”) Based on Meta’s evidence, it appears that the petition is untimely. Moreover, petitioner did not
June 17, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ accompany the petition with a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (b).)
Meta further objects that petitioner has not submitted a separate statement, citing California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345. Meta is correct; a separate statement is required.
Meta also objects that petitioner has not complied with the procedures outlined in Code of Civil Procedure, section 2029.350, “which require Petitioner to issue a foreign subpoena in the underlying Arizona state court matter before issuing a domesticated California subpoena.” Petitioner has not submitted evidence that she has done so.
Further, Meta argues that petitioner “has not met the requisite constitutional standards to identify the anonymous speaker targeted by the Subpoena.” (Opp. at p. 1.) Meta argues that petitioner “must show that (1) she has attempted to notify the account holder and (2) there is a prima facie cause of action against the Anonymous Speaker.” (Ibid., citing Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 6; Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 623 (Glassdoor); Krinsky v. Doe 6 (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Krinsky).)
To unmask an anonymous speaker, petitioner must demonstrate that (1) he has attempted to notify the account holder(s), and (2) there is a prima facie cause of action against the anonymous speaker. (Glassdoor, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 634; Krinsky, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1171-1172; ZL Techs., Inc. v. Does 1-7 (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 603, 633 (ZL Techs) [requiring the plaintiff to make a prima facie evidentiary showing of the elements of defamation before allowing disclosure of a defendant’s identity].) Petitioner has offered no evidence that she attempted to notify the account holders, including through Meta. Nor has she offered any evidence of the allegedly defamatory statements. Accordingly, petitioner has not shown that a prima facie cause of action exists.
Further, to the extent these requests seek the contents of communications, the Stored Communications Act (SCA) bars their production. Petitioner’s subpoena seeks documents that would identify the anonymous publisher (such as documents identifying “originating ip address; login ip addresses; timestamps of access; device identifiers”), as well as “post content; images, comments, and edits; any deleted or modified components; and internal metadata and timestamps.” The SCA prohibits Meta from disclosing the content of such communications. (18 U.S.C. §§ 2702(a)(1), (2), (b)(1)-(9); Negro v.
Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 879, 892- 893 (2014), as modified (Nov. 18, 2014).) Although the SCA bars production of communications, documents and information that are not content-based, including subscriber information (such as documents revealing the anonymous publisher’s identity) are not protected by the SCA. Petitioner’s subpoena includes requests for content-based information, which Meta is precluded from producing.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DENIED.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, Meta’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s
June 17, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.