Neville v Google LLC [2023] FCA 625

Neville v Google LLC [2023] FCA 625

The Court was satisfied that the requirements of r 7.22(1) were met because the evidence showed that the applicant may have claims in defamation and injurious falsehood against unknown person or persons responsible for the negative communications, she had been unable to ascertain their description despite taking steps to do so, and Google LLC and Microsoft Corporation were likely to have documents assisting in that identification. Preliminary discovery was therefore ordered, with Google LLC's initial discovery limited to agreed categories and Microsoft Corporation's discovery not similarly limited because it did not appear or engage substantively.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Preliminary Discovery Pursuant to R 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Judgment and Orders on Application for Preliminary Discovery
Outcome
Application substantially granted.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'identification of Prospective Respondents' 'online Communications' 'defamation' 'injurious Falsehood' 'service Outside Australia']
['practice and Procedure' 'defamation'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'identification of Prospective Respondents' 'online Communications' 'defamation' 'injurious Falsehood' 'service Outside Australia']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Preliminary Discovery Pursuant to R 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Judgment and Orders on Application for Preliminary Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant may have a right to obtain relief against a prospective respondent in defamation and injurious falsehood arising from negative communications.' 'Whether the applicant was unable to ascertain the description of the prospective respondent or prospective respondents responsible for the negative communications.' 'Whether Google LLC and Microsoft Corporation know or are likely to know, or have or are likely to have documents that would help ascertain, the description of the prospective respondent or prospective respondents.' 'What categories of preliminary discovery should be ordered against Google LLC and Microsoft Corporation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the requirements of r 7.22(1) were met because the evidence showed that the applicant may have claims in defamation and injurious falsehood against unknown person or persons responsible for the negative communications, she had been unable to ascertain their description despite taking steps to do so, and Google LLC and Microsoft Corporation were likely to have documents assisting in that identification. Preliminary discovery was therefore ordered, with Google LLC's initial discovery limited to agreed categories and Microsoft Corporation's discovery not similarly limited because it did not appear or engage substantively.

Court Disposition

Application substantially granted.

Orders

  • ['The First Respondent give discovery within 21 days to the Prospective Applicant by email of documents or things in its possession, power or control containing subscriber information, user names, IP addresses and associated information, and phone numbers associated with the specified Gmail Accounts.' 'The Second...