Case Activity (10124)

1. Response | Filed: July 28, 2026 | Entered: July 28, 2026 Doe v. CloudFlare, Inc.

   Civil Rights: Other | California Northern

   Opposition/Response to Motion

   OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 44 MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint ) filed byCloudFlare, Inc.. (Kiefer, Oliver) (Filed on 7/28/2026)

2. Order | Filed: July 28, 2026 | Entered: July 28, 2026 Karpowski v. Reddit Inc et al

   Assault Libel & Slander | Illinois Central

   Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

   TEXT ORDER: On July 23, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for leave to conduct early discovery. In doing so, it observed that Plaintiff had failed to explain how or why Shreem Capital would know the user who generated the allegedly defamatory Reddit post that prompted this lawsuit. It also granted Plaintiff leave to cure that defect, which Plaintiff has 37 done. From what the Court can gather, Plaintiff does not seek the identity of the Reddit user who generated the post; he seeks the name of the employee or employees who lodged allegedly fabricated complaints about him with Shreem Capital's senior management. (See, e.g., Doc. 37 at 9 ("[Plaintiff] requests identifying information for employees or former employees who authored or participated in the slanderous communication about him that were sent to senior leadership.")). The Court's prior hesitation to grant early discovery was that this information would not necessarily lead to the identity of the person who authored the Reddit post. But from what the Court can gather, Plaintiff does not wish to sue that person. Instead, Plaintiff wishes to sue the person who communicated the allegedly defamatory information to his prospective employer--Shreem Capital. Perhaps those are one in the same, but the Court need not decide the question. All told, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to issue a narrowly tailored subpoena to Shreem Capital. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f); see also Ibarra v. City of Chicago, 816 F. Supp. 2d 541, 555 (N.D. Ill. 2011). Plaintiff's 37 motion is thus GRANTED IN PART. That said, the proposed subpoena attached to Plaintiff's 37 motion is overly broad. (Doc. 37-2.) Among other things, it asks for swaths of communications, internal memoranda, and investigation reports that relate to this dispute. Such requests would generate far more information than is needed at this juncture. Plaintiff is instead granted leave only to request from Shreem Capital documents necessary to identify the employee or employees who lodged complaints with Shreem Capital's management prior to the rescission of Plaintiff's job offer. See Ibarra, 816 F. Supp. 2d at 555 (granting leave to issue pre-service discovery that is "narrowly tailored in scope and seek to ascertain the identities of the Doe defendants named in [the plaintiff's] Complaint"). In issuing his subpoena, Plaintiff is ORDERED to strictly adhere to this Order and to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, including Rule 45(a)(1)(A)(iv). Failure to do so may result in the subpoena being quashed, along with any sanctions the Court deems appropriate. Finally, the Court clarifies that its finding of good cause to permit early discovery in no way forecloses a party from challenging Plaintiff's subpoena at a later time. Entered by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Hanna on July 28, 2026. (NL)

3. 10122 additional result(s)