Motion for Early Discovery
include the phrase 'all documents that are responsive to this request'; No. 64 without limitation on the scope; No. 79; No. 83 limited to five years prior to 2023 and to records related to mental health care; and No. 94 (see id. at P.P. 6-7, Ex. 2.), Plaintiff has not provided a date by which she will provide supplemental responses. Accordingly, Defendants reserve the right to bring a motion to compel further responses regarding those requests." (RFP Joint Discovery Dispute Statement, pp. 2:26-3:5.)
However, it is unclear what, if any, RFPs remain at issue. Plaintiff's counsel testifies that Plaintiff served confidential documents on May 29, 2026. (Declaration of Jessica C. Covington, filed on June 9, 2026, P. 9.).
Defendants have not disputed that fact or indicated Plaintiff's supplemental responses to the RFPs were insufficient. Therefore, the motion to compel further responses to the RFPs is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is also denied because she has not argued or shown that the RFP motion was brought without substantial justification as to all RFPs.
CONCLUSION
The motions to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) are DENIED in their entirety.
The motion to compel further response to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Nos. 202.2, 203.1, 210.4, 8.4, and 10.1, only. Defendant is ordered to provide further code-compliant responses within 30 days.
The request for sanctions for that motion is also GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff sanctions of $1,377 within 30 days. Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.
Dated this 16th day of July 2026 | | | Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court |
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT RONALD J. RADKE, Plaintiff, vs. JOHN DOE 1, et al., Defendants. |))))))))))) | CASE NO.: 26STCV00484 [TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR EARLY DISCOVERY Dept. 506 8:30 a.m. July 16, 2026 |
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?”
On June 17, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for early discovery. Plaintiff seeks leave to serve subpoenas on Snap Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and AT&T, Inc. for the production of business records related to the IP addresses that Plaintiff learned through other early discovery. Plaintiff has not provided copies of any subpoenas.
In a series of cases, the courts have grappled with subpoenas seeking to discover the identities of defendants sued for making anonymous statements on the Internet that allegedly defame the plaintiff or interfere with the plaintiff's business. In Krinsky v. Doe 6 (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Krinsky), the court explained that "'an author's decision to remain anonymous . . . is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.' [Citation.]"
(Id. at pp. 1164-1165.) The court set out a process for a plaintiff subpoenaing an Internet service provider, website, or other third party for identifying information about the unknown defendant. The first requirement is an attempt to notify the defendant that disclosure of his or her identity is sought. Often, the subpoenaed third party can notify the defendant that disclosure is sought. (Id. at p. 1171.)
Later courts followed Krinsky in requiring notification. (Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 623, 634 ["First, if the defendant has not received notice of the attempt to lift the shield of anonymity, the plaintiff must make reasonable efforts to provide such notice."]; ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7 (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 603, 615 ["a court must ensure reasonable efforts are made to notify the defendants, permitting them an opportunity to respond, before disclosure of their identities may be compelled"]; Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court 17 Cal.App.5th 1, 14 (Yelp) ["'the trial court should direct the subpoenaed party to provide [the notice]'"].)
Plaintiff is not able to give notice because he does not know the identities of the people who are assigned the IP addresses. The purpose of giving notice to anonymous commenters is "permitting them an opportunity to respond." (Yelp, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at p. 14.) There is no evidence that the account holders have notice of this motion or that they have any information about this action. Therefore, before the Court can proceed, there must be reasonable efforts to notify the defendants and provide them an opportunity to respond.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve his subpoenas on Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and AT&T, Inc. within 14 days of this order.
The Court ORDERS Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and AT&T, Inc. to: 1. Give notice to the person or persons identified in the subpoenas that Plaintiff Ronald J. Radke in Case No. 26STCV00484, pending in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, has subpoenaed the person's or persons' identifying information from Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and AT&T, Inc. The notice is to state that the person or persons have 30 days from the date Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and AT&T, Inc. give notice to file a response to the subpoenas in Case No. 26STCV00484 if they object to their identifying information being disclosed. The person or persons may file any response using a pseudonym. Snap Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and AT&T, Inc. are to give this notice within 14 days of their counsel receiving copies of the subpoenas and this order.
2. Deliver a copy of the notice, with any identifying information redacted, to counsel for Plaintiff at the same time Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and AT&T, Inc. give the notice.
The hearing on the motion is CONTINUED to October 22, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff is ORDERED file (1) copies of the subpoenas served on Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and AT&T, Inc.; (2) proof of service of this order on counsel for Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and AT&T, Inc.; and (3) a copy of the notice that Plaintiff received from Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and AT&T, Inc.. These items are to be filed no later than 7 calendar days before the hearing.
The Court will not sign the proposed order submitted on June 17, 2026. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this order to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and AT&T, Inc.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.
Dated this 16th day of July 2026 | | | Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court | | Home -->)" -->