Preview
7; KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD
150.Post Street, Svite 520 San Francisco, CA 9at08
=
oO ON OO aA FF WO DY
10
KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
Karl S. Kronenberger (Bar No. 226112)
Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Bar No. 222187)
Ruben Pefia (CA Bar No..328106)
150 Post Street, Suite 520
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 955-1155
Facsimile: (415) 955-1158
karl@KRinternetLaw.com
jeff@KRInternetLaw.com
ruben@KRinternetLaw.com
Attorneys for Petitioner Ved Vora
FILED
SUPERIOR Ci
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MAY 08 2021
GLEBK OF IE COURT
We.
ANGELICASUNGA YORK
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
VED VORA, an individual,
Petitioner,
v.
TWITTER, INC.,
Respondent.
VED VORA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE 4 and.
JOHN DOES 2-10,
Defendants.
Case No.
Case nOPF-217-5 1743 4
DISCOVERY
DECLARATION OF JEFFREY M.
ROSENFELD IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION TO COMPEL TWITTER,
INC, TO RESPOND TO SUBPOENA
ISSUED FOR CASE PENDING IN
FOREIGN JURISDICTION PURSUANT
TO C.C.P. §2029.600
In re out-of-state action:
Ved Vora v. John Doe 1 and John Does
2-10,
Case No. S2013643
In the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, Canada
Filed by Plaintiff Ved Vora
Date: June 4, 2021
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Ctrm: 302
Before: The Hon. Ethan P. Schulman
ROSENFELD DECL ISO PETITIONER’S
PETITION TO COMPEL=
|, Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, declare as follows:
1. | am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of California and
before this Court. | am partner with the law firm of Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP,
California counsel for Petitioner Ved Vora (“Petitioner”). Unless otherwise stated, | have ©
. personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration.
2. On December 22, 2020, Petitioner filed a Notice of Civil Claim in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, Case No. $2013643, asserting a claim of
defamation under Canadian law (the “Canadian Action”). A true and correct copy of the
Notice of Civil Claim is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As described in Exhibit A, Petitioner
o an. Oa FF WOW DY
has alleged that beginning on or about October 25, 2020, unknown Defendants John
a 0s
20
Does 1-10 began engaging in a campaign of defaming Petitioner for the purpose of
=
nyo
destroying his reputation. Specifically, Defendants ‘in the Canadian Action published
=
wo
numerous statements on Twitter and in emails falsely stating that Petitioner is a rapist
and a criminal.
3. On December 23, 2020, Canadian counsel for Petitioner applied for early
= 03
a a
discovery in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to determine Defendants’ identities.
=a
N
A true and correct copy of Petitioner's Application for early discovery and supporting
150 Post Street, Suite g20 San Francisco, CA 94108
=
a
=
oc
documentation in the Canadian Action is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Petitioner served
7; KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD
=
o
fetes
Twitter with copies of Petitioner's Notice of Civil Claim and Notice of Application for early
“e
nN
Oo
discovery and supporting documentation on December 24, 2020. On December 29, 2020,
21 | Petitioner served Twitter with complete copies of Petitioner's Notice of Civil Claim and
22 | Notice of Application for early discovery and supporting documentation. On January 15,
23 | 2021, after a hearing, the Canadian Court granted Petitioner's Application for early
24 | discovery and issued an order (the “Canadian Order”), which directed Google LLC and
25 || Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) to produce documents to identify Defendants. A true and correct
26 | copy of the Canadian Order is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Specifically, the Canadian
27 | Order ordered Twitter to produce “any and all documents in its possession and control
28 containing the subscriber registration information associated with the Twitter account
Case No. 4 ROSENFELD DECL ISO PETITIONER’S.
PETITION TO COMPELa
=
w
2
uw
“
°
ae
at
a
@
as
a
a
z
as
Zz
°
AS
BM
150 Post Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94108
oOo ODN OO Fk WOW NY =
Mh MN NY NY NY YB NY ND B= @ |@w sow ew Baoan A A a
on Oak OW YO SF DG ON DOD TD BRB WN =
@marco87 138252 (the ‘Twitter Account’), as well as the IP logins for the Twitter Account,
to the extent that such information or data is in the possession of and readily available to
Twitter, Inc...”.
4. On January 20, 2021, my office issued a Subpoena for Production of
Business Records in Action Pending Outside California pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ.
Proc. (“CCP”) §2029.350 to Twitter (the “Subpoena’), which incorporated the terms of the
Canadian Order. A true and correct copy of Petitioner's Subpoena to Twitter is attached
hereto as Exhibit D. The information requested by Petitioner from Twitter is limited to
Petitioner's need to identify the Defendants; the Subpoena seeks only information about
the identity and location of the anonymous Defendants, such as subscriber registration
information and IP addresses. Importantly, the Subpoena does not seek protected speech
activities or stored electronic communications, such as the contents of communications
themselves.
5. On February 5, 2021, Twitter served written objections to the Subpoena. A
true and correct copy of Twitter's objections is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Twitter's
substantive objections to the Subpoena are two-fold. First, Twitter objected that a U.S.
court has not considered and imposed the First Amendment safeguards required before
a litigant may be permitted to identify an anonymous speaker. Second, Twitter objected
on the grounds that Petitioner's Subpoena constituted unauthorized early discovery in
violation of California law.
6. On February 9, 2021, my office served written responses to Twitter's
objections. A true and correct copy of Petitioner's response to Twitter’s objections is
attached hereto as Exhibit F. On March 2, 2021, March 11, 2021, and April 7, 2021, |
met and conferred via telephone with Twitter’s outside counsel regarding Twitter's
objections to Petitioner's Subpoena. Despite the parties’ efforts to resolve this matter
without involving the court, Twitter maintains its objection that a U.S. court should
consider First Amendment standards and, if those standards are met, order the disclosure
of the identifying information for the anonymous Defendants.
Case No. 2 ROSENFELD DECL ISO PETITIONER’S
PETITION TO COMPEL4 7. Based on the date of service of Twitter's objections to Petitioner's
2 | Subpoena, the original deadline for Petitioner to file any motion to compel Twitter's
3 || response to the Subpoena was April 6, 2021. On March 24, 2021, Twitter's counsel
4 | agreed to an extension of time for Petitioner to file any motion to compel Twitter's
5 || compliance with the Subpoena from April 6, 2021 to May 6, 2021. A true and correct copy
6 | of an email confirming this extension of time is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
7 8. Although my office attempted to provide notice to the affected Twitter users
8 || (Defendants in the Canadian Action) by serving Petitioner’s Notice of Civil Claim and
a 9 | Application for early discovery on Twitter, we were not able to directly notify the affected
3 10 | users because the Twitter account at issue is no longer active; thus, there is no feasible
2 s 11 | way to provide any additional notice to the affected user. However, in its February 5, 2021
2 3 12 | objection letter, Twitter advised Petitioner that it had sent a notice and a copy of
ee i 13 | Petitioner's Subpoena to any email address(es) associated with any account properly
“ 3 14 | identified in Petitioner's Subpoena. See Ex. E attached hereto.
& i 15
z 7 16 | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
2 17 | foregoing is true and correct.
a * 18 :
. WE OFL
ite 19 | DATED: May 3, 2021 By: 4 SG
20 oe Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3 ROSENFELD DECL ISO PETITIONER'S
PETITION TO COMPELExhibit Aeo . - oe
SUPREME COURT. oe S2015 643...
j OF BRITISH COLUMBIA — pd
WANCOUVER REGISTRY © No.
“Mancoaver Reisty
BEC: 22700 :
INTHE SUPREME COURT ‘OF BRI PASH. ‘COLUMBIA
4 eo Vora :
“PLAINTIFF
“= JOHIN DOE 1 and JOHN DOES 2-10
DEFENDANTS
a enn BO RRA SONS NOOR
(eSB Srriorcacitnetncischaaa eit
(by serve a copy. ofthe filed response to civil claim and counterclaim ‘on the .
~ plaintia and 9 on: any new. Parties named i an the. sonnei :
: by @ ify ‘ion wer served: with the: notice of. civit claim ny anywhere | in Canada, with “
. 21 day after that service,(c) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49 days
after that service, or
(d) if the time for response to civil claim ‘has been set by order of the court,
within that time. :
CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF
Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS
INTRODUCTION
1. The Plaintiff Ved Vora is ordinarily resident in the City of Surrey, in the Province of British
Columbia.
2. The identity of the Defendant John Doe 1 and’the identities of the Defendants John Does 2 to
10 are not yet known to the Plaintiff. As soon as their identities become known, the Plaintiff
will amend the style of cause and the statement of facts in this notice of civil claim to
substitute their true names.
INTRODUCTION
3. On or-about October 25, 2020 the Defendant John Doe 1 aid the Defendants John Does 2 to
10 commenced a campaign of vilification of the Plaintiff for the predominant purpose of
destroying, diminishing or undermining his reputation, exposing him to hatred ridicule and
contempt, and causing others to shun and.avoid him.
4. The campaign of vilification consisted of the following publications of and concerning the
Plaintiff.
a. Defamatory Tweets:
i, On the Twitter page-of Pivot Canada on October 25,2020;
ii. On the Twitter page of the Plaintiff and tagging the Twitter usernames of
the City of Port Coquitlam, TB Canada Company d.b.a. Taco Bell Canada
and the City of Surrey on November 1, 2020;iii, On the Twitter page of the Plaintiff and tagging the Twitter usernames of
TransLink, Pivot Canada and the University of Queensland on November
1,,2020;
b. Defamatory emails sent to:
i. The Sexual Violence Support & Prevention Office of Simon Fraser
University on November 24, 2020 at 5:46 PM;
ii, The Parks, Recreation & Culture Department of the City of Surrey on
November 24, 2020 at 7:18 PM;
iii, The Department of the Premier and Cabinet of the Queensland
Government (Australia) on November 25, 2020 at 2:24 PM;
iv. Glenda Jacobs on December 5, 2020 at 12:15 PM.
PARTICULARS
[Note: The defamatory: expression quoted below in this notice of civil claim incorporates the
spelling mistakes and grammatical errors made in the original publications.]
DEFAMATORY TWEETS
October 25 2020 Tweet
5. On October 25, 2020 the Defendant John Doe 1 and the Defendants John Does 2 to 10 (or
alternatively one or more of them) published a Tweet from the Twitter username.
@marco87138252 on the Twitter page of Pivot Canada on . the Internet at
https://twitter.com/pivot_canada containing the following words of and concerning the
Plaintiff (the “October 25 2020 Tweet”): -
Stop your rapist employee, criminal ved vora
6. The words in the October 25 2020 Tweet are false and. defamatory of the Plaintiff in their
literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the October 25 2020 Tweet conveyed the
defamatory inferential meanings set out in paragraphs 19.c., 19.d. and 19.e.First November 1 2020 Tweet
7.
On November 1, 2020 the Defendant John Doe 1 and the Defendants John Does 2 to 10 (or
alternatively one or more of them) published a Tweet from. the Twitter username
@marco87138252 on the Twitter page of the Plaintiff on the Intetnet at
https://twitter.com/ferret_parrot, (the “Plaintiffs Twitter Page”) and to the Twitter accounts
of City of Port Coquitlam, TB Canada Company d.b.a. Taco Bell Canada and the City of
Surrey containing the following words of and concerning the Plaintiff (the “First November 1
2020 Tweet”):
ved vora'is a rapist
The words in the First November | 2020: Tweet are false and defamatory of the Plaintiff in
their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the First November 1 2020 Tweet
conveyed the defamatory inferential meanings set out in paragraphs 19.c., 19.d. and 19.¢.
Second November 1 2020 Tweet
9.
On November 1, 2020 the Defendant John Doe 1 and the Defendants John Does 2 to 10 (or
alternatively one or more of them) published a Tweet from the Twitter username
@marco87138252 on the Plaintiff's Twitter Page and to the Twitter accounts of TransLink,
Pivot Canada and the University of Queensland containing the following words of and
concerning the Plaintiff the (“Second November 1 2020 Tweet”):
Translink Ved is a loser, scam, trying to intimidate you don’t listen to him ved is a rapist
10. The words in the Second November 1 2020 Tweet.are false and defamatory of the Plaintiff in
their literal meaning. Furthér, or in the alternative, the Second November 1 2020 Tweet
conveyed the defamatory inferential meanings set out in paragraphs 19.c., 19.d. and 19.¢.
DEFAMATORY EMAILS
November 24 2020 5:46 PM Email
11. On November 24, 2020 at 5:46 PM the Defendant John Doe I and the Defendants John Does
2 to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published an email in British Columbia from
the email account “ved vorasshole ved81168@gmail.com” about the Plaintiff to the Sexual
Co.Violence Support & Prevention Office of Simon Fraser University containing the following
words of and concerning the Plaintiff (the “November 24 2020.5:46 PM Email”):
Subject: a-hole ved vore
Text: Ved you are an abuser stop it,
12. The words in the November 24 2020 5:46 PM Email are false and defamatory of the Plaintiff
in their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the November 24 2020 5:46 PM Email
conveyed the defamatory inferential meaning set out in paragraph 19.a.
November 24 2020 7:18 PM Email
13. On November 24, 2020 at 7:18 PM the Defendant John Doe | and the Defendants John Does
2.to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published an email in British Columbia from
the. email account. “ved vorasshole ved81168@gmail.com” about the Plaintiff to the Parks,
Recreation & Culture Department of the City of Surrey containing the following words of
and concerning the Plaintiff (the “November 24 2020 7:18 PM Email”):
Subject: Stop Ved Vora - Mesquite
Text: you need to stop your illegal online activities!!!!
14. The words in the November 24 2020 7:18 PM Email are false and defamatory of the Plaintiff
in their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the November 24 2020 7:18 PM Email
conveyed thé defamatory inferential meaning set.out in paragraph 19.b.
November 25 2020 2:24 PM Email
15. On November 25, 2020 at 2:24 PM the Defendant John Doe 1 and the Defendants John Does
2 to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published an email in British Columbia from
the email account “ved vorasshole yed81168@zmail.com” about the Plaintiff to the
Department of the Premier and Cabinet of the Queensland Government (Australia)
containing the following words of and concerning the Plaintiff (the “November 25 2020 2:24
PM Email”):
Subject: Urgent Stop Criminal Ved Vora
5Text: more evidence to come,
i
16. The. words in the November 25 2020 2:24 PM Email I are false and defamatory of the
- Plaintiff in their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the November 25 2020 2:24
PM Email conveyed the defamatory inferential meaning set out in paragraph 19.f.
December 5 2020 12:15 PM Email
17. On December 5, 2020 at 12:15 PM the Defendant John Doe 1 and the Defendants John Does
2 to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published an email in British Columbia from
the email account “ved vorasshole ved81168@gmail.com” about the Plaintiff to Glenda
Jacobs containing the: following words of and concerning the Plaintiff (the “December 5
2020 12:15. PM Email”):
Subject: hi
Text: he is a rapist,
18. The words in the December 5 2020 12:15 PM Email are false and defamatory of the Plaintiff
in their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the December 5 2020 12:15 PM Email
conveyed the defamatory inferential meanings set out in paragraphs 19.c., 19.d. and 19.¢.
INFERENTIAL MEANINGS
19. The following false and defamatory inferential meanings of and concerning the Plaintiff are
conveyed to the average, ordinary reader as a matter of impression by expression complained
of in this notice of civil claim:
a. The Plaintiffis guilty of committing physical abuse;
b. The Plaintiffis guilty of illegal conduct on the Internet;
c, The Plaintiff is a rapist;
d. The Plaintiffis guilty of sexual assaults;
e, The Plaintiff is guilty of the sexual offences described in sections 271, 272 and
273 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46;f. The Plaintiff is guilty of criminal conduct; and/or
g. One or more of the above.
PUBLICATION
20. Each of the October 25 2020 Tweet, the First November 1 2020 Tweet and the Second
November 1 2020 Tweet was accessed, downloaded, read and/or viewed by many persons in
British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada.and the world.
JOINT LIABILITY
21. The Defendants each aided or participated in the acts and omissions complained of in this notice
of civil claim pursuant to. 4 common design and caused, procured, authorized, concurred in
and/or approved publication of the defamatory expression. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, each Defendant created or assisted in creating the content of the aforesaid
defamatory expression and further (or in the alternative):
a. Approved, authorized, incited or encouraged publication of the aforesaid
defamatory expression; and/or
b. Participated in causing the dissemination of the aforesaid defamatory expression
to third parties or by facilitating republication as alleged below; and/or
c, Communicated to third parties their agreement with the content of the defamatory
expression.
EXPRESS MALICE
22. The Defendants each maliciously published the defamatory expression complained of in this
notice of civil claim with the knowledge that the literal and popular innuendo meanings
conveyed by that expression were false, or alternatively, with reckless indifference whether
those meanings were true or false. Alternatively, the Defendants each published. the
defamatory expression for the predominant purpose of injuring the Plaintiff.DAMAGES
23.
24,
25.
The Defendants have each been guilty of reprehensible, insulting, high-handed, spiteful,
malicious and oppressive conduct and such conduct by the Defendants justifies the court in
imposing a substantial penalty of exemplary damages on the Defendants plus an award of
special costs in favour of the Plaintiff, in addition to an award of general damages for injury
to reputation. The Plaintiff will rely upon the entire conduct of the Defendants before and
after the commencement of this action to the.date of judgment in this action.
The defamatory expression complained of in this notice of civil claim has caused and
continues to cause injury, loss and damage to the Plaintiff, including:
a. Substantial, and persisting injury to reputation;
b. Injury to pride and self-confidence;
c. Severe emotional distress;
d. Injury to:professional relationships;
and was deliberately calculated by each Defendant to expose the Plaintiffito contempt,
ridicule and hatred, and to. cause other persons to shun or avoid the Plaintiff, and to lower the
Plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of the community, all of which
has in fact occurred.
As a further consequence of the publication and republication of the defamatory expression
complained of in this notice of civil claim, the Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur
loss, damage and expense, and will incur loss, damage and expense in the future, including
special damages including, but not limited to, loss of income (past, present and future),
particulars of which will be provided on request.
INJUNCTION26. Each Defendant is likely to continue to publish the defamatoty expression complained of in
this notice of civil claim unless restrained from doing so by an order of this Honourable
Court.
Part 2: RELIEFSOUGHT
The Plaintiff therefore claims against each Defendant as.follows:
a. general damagés;
‘b. aggravated damages;
c. exemplary or punitive damages;
d. special damages;
€. an interlocutory and permanent injunction to restrain each Defendant, and other
persons with knowledge of the injunction, from any further publication of the
expression complained of, or expression to the same effect;
f. interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. c. 79
g- special costs plus disbursements and taxes; and.
h. such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may seer just.
Part 3: LEGAL BASIS
1. The Plaintiff relies on the common law relating to libel, the assessment of damages and costs,
and on thé principles of equity relating to injunctive relief.
Plaintif?’ 's address for service: McConchie Law Corporation
290 .— 889 Harbourside Drive ©
North Vancouver, BC V7P 3S1Fax number address for service (if any): 604-988-1610
E-mail address for service (if any): alan@libelandprivacy.com;
meconchie@libelandprivacy.com; and
assistant@libelandprivacy.com.
(ALL)
Place of trial: Vancouver, British Columbia
The address of the registry is: 800 Smithe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2E1
Date: December 21, 2020- aes
Signature“of,
nee TRlawyer for plaintiff
McConchie Law Corporation
Alan McConchie
Rule 7-1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states:
(1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of
record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period,
(a) prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists
(i) all documents that are or have been in the party's
possession or control and that could, if available, be
used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a
imaterial fact, and
(ii) all other documents to which the party intends
to refer at trial, and
.(b) serve the list on all parties of record.
Appendix
[The following information is provided for data collection purposes only and is of no legal
effect.)
Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM:
10Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING:
[Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case.]
A personal injury arising out of
[ ] a motor vehicle accident
[ ] medical malpractice.
[ ] another cause
A dispute concerning:
[ ] contaminated sites.
[ ] construction defects
[ ] real property (real estate)
[ ] personal property
[ ] the provision of goods or'services or other géneral commercial matters
[ ] investment losses
[ ] the lending of money
{ J an-employment relationship
[ ] a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate
[X ] a matter not listed here
Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES:
[Check all boxes below that apply to this case]
[ Jaclass action
[ ] maritime law
[ ] aboriginal law
[ ] constitutional law
[ ] conflict:of laws
{ X ] none of the above
[ ] do not know
TkPart 4:
[fan enactment is being relied on, specify. Do not list more than 3 enactments.]
12Exhibit B‘No. $2013643-
Vancouver Registry :
Sauna NN
"VED VORA
“PLAINTIFF
“JOHN DOE t'and JOHN DOES 2-10
DEFENDANTS
Part 1: _ ORDERS SOUGHT.
and dointtal eontaininig ‘the ~!
with ‘the Gmail “account ’.
well as:the JP. logi for the Gmail’.
is in the Possession of, and readily ,
The Plaintift acknowledges that Google LC may inform the owner of the Gmail :
. eae of. Mas request, 4a. accordince with. th-Google LLC’ ’s usual pdlicies. are
within, twenty days of being. served ~
in its possession and control. containing
‘aforinetion associated with the Twitter. accotint
* ee “Account”, as well as the IP logins - for. the Twitter
: available to Dyit
fic. as sg oF the date-of-this Ord 3
code (o There shall be no ce fF thi motion for or against Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc. :-2-
5. The Plaintiff shall pay the reasonable costs incurred by Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc.
in complying with this Order, if requested to do so by Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc.
Part 2:FACTUAL BASIS
1. ‘The Plaintiff commenced this action on December 22, 2020 by notice of civil claim
(“NOCC”).
2. Theidentity of the Defendant John Doe | and the identities of the Defendants John Does 2
to: 10.are not yet known to the Plaintiff:
3. The NOCC in this action alleges inter alia that:
DEFAMATORY TWEETS
October 25 2020 Tweet
5. On October 25, 2020 the Defendant John Doe I and the Defendants John Does 2 to 10
(or alternatively one or more of them) published a Tweet from the Twitter username
@marco87138252 on the Twitter page of Pivot Canada on the Internet at
https://twitter.com/pivot_canada containing the following. words of and concerning the
Plaintiff (the “October 25 2020 Tweet”):
Stop your rapist employee, criminal ved vora
6. The words in the October 25 2020 Tweet are false and defamatory of the Plaintiff in
their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the October 25 2020 Tweet conveyed
the defamatory inferential meanings set out in paragraphs 19.c., 19.d. and 19.e,
DEFAMATORY EMAILS
November 24 2020 5:46. PM Email
11. On November 24, 2020 at 5:46 PM the Defendant John Doe 1 and the Defendants
John Does 2 to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published an email in British
Columbia from the email account “ved vorasshole ved81168@gmail.com” about the
Plaintiff to the Sexual Violence Support & Prevention Office of Simon Fraser University
containing the following words of and concerning the Plaintiff (the “November 24 2020
5:46 PM Email”):Subject: a--hole ved vore
Text: Ved you are an abuser stop it,
12. The words in the November 24 2020 5:46 PM Email are false and defamatory of the
Plaintiff in their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the November 24 2020
5:46 PM Email conveyed the defamatory inferential meaning set out in paragraph 19.a.
December § 2020 12:15 PM Email
17. On December 5, 2020 at 12;15 PM the Defendant John Doe 1 and the Defendants
John Does 2 to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published an email in British
Columbia from. the email account “ved vorasshole ved811 68@gmail.com” about the
Plaintiff to Glenda Jacobs containing the following words of and concerning the Plaintiff
(the “December 5 2020 12:15 PM Email”): ,
Subject: hi
Text: he is a rapist,
18. The words in the. December 5 2020 12:15 PM Email are false and defamatory of the
Plaintiff in their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the December 5 2020
12:15 PM Email conveyed the defamatory inferential meanings set out in paragraphs
19.c., 19.d, and 19.e.
An individual must create a Google account to create a Gmail email account.
Each time a Google account is created, Google LLC records in a database and weblogs
maintained on its behalf inter alia the following information:
i The.name used to create the account;
ii. The Gmail email address associated with the account;
iii. All Google services associated with the account (e.g. Gmail, YouTube, Google
Drive, ete.);
iv. Any secondary email address(es) associated with the account;-4-
v. The date the account was created;
vi, The Internet Protocol for the computer from which the account was created;
vii. A record of the Internet Protocol addresses for the computer(s) that have logged in
to the account; and
viii. Any phone number(s) associated with the account.
Affidavit #1 of Jade Fraser
6. Twitter, Inc. operates the website at https://twitter.com/.
7. Each time a Twitter account is created, Twitter, Inc. records in a database and weblogs
maintained on its behalf inter alia the following information:
ix. The riame used to créate the account;
xX. The phone number(s) associated with the account;
Xi. The date of birth associated with the account;
xii. The date the account was created;
xiii, The Internet Protocol for the computer from which the account was created;
xiv. A record of the Internet Protocol addresses for the computer(s) that have logged in
to the account; and
Affidavit #1 of Jade Fraser
Part3; LEGAL BASIS
1. The Plaintiff relies on Rule 7-1(18) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.
2. The documents sought on this application are relevant to proving the identity of the
person(s) responsible for publishing the defamatory publications complained of in the
NOCC.
3. Rule 7-1(18).is to be interpreted liberally, with a view to providing any party to an action the
right to pre-trial inspection. of documents relevant to the proceedings but in the possession or
control of a third patty: McLachlin & Taylor, British Columbia Practice, Third Edition, p.
7-142.1 to 7-143.
4. It is reasonable to assume; on. the basis of the material filed in support of this application, that
Google LLC and Twitter, Inc. have in their possession documents that could, if available,
be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact. Century Services Inc. v.-5-
LeRoy, 2012 BCSC 1079 at para. 109; Texada. Land Corp. v, Texada Logging Ltd., 2003
BCSC 486 at para. 10 citing Dufault v. Stevens and Stevens (1978), 6 B.C.L.R. 199 (C.A.).
5. Jt is not necessary that the applicant persuade the court that specific documentation does
exist. The existence, nature and extent of any specific document cannot be known until
production is made. The requirement that the applicant demonstrate that the non-party have
documentation in its possession is satisfied in the event that, by reference to the non-party's
association with the subject matter of the litigation, it is reasonable to assume that such
documentation would likely exist. The evidence satisfies this test. Texada Land Corp. v.
Texada Logging Ltd..at para. 14.
Part4: MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON
1. Affidavit #1 of Jade Fraser.
2. The pleadings and proceeding herein.
3.. Such further documents as counsel shall advise:
The applicant estimates that the application will take 5 minutes.
[Check the correct box.]
&] This matter is within the jurisdiction of a master.
O This matter is not within the jurisdiction ofa master.
TO THE PERSONS RECEIVING THIS NOTICE OF APPLICATION: If you wish to respond
to the application, you.must, within 5 business days after service of this notice of application or,
if this application is brought under Rule 9-7, within 8 business days after service of this notice of
application,
(a) file. an application response in Form 33,
(b) _ file the original of every affidavit, and of every other document, that
(i). you intend to refer to at the hearing of this application, and
(ii) has:not already been filed in the proceeding, and
(c) serve on the: applicant 2 copies of the following, and on every other party of
record oné copy:of the following:
(i), a copy of the filed application response;
(ii) a copy of each of the filed affidavits and other documents that you
intend to refer to at the hearing of this application and that has not
already been served on that person;
(iii) if this application is brought under Rule 9-7, any notice that you are
required to give under Rule 9-7(9).Date: December 22, 2020
Signature of Kiyyer for applicants
Alan Mc€onthie
McConchie Law Corporation
Solicitor for the Plaintiff
CONTACT INFORMATION:
McCONCHIE LAW CORPORATION
290 - 889 Harbourside Drive
North Vancouver, BC V7P 381
Telephone: 778-896-0084
alan@libelandprivacy.com
To be completed by the court only:
Order made
[] in the terms requested in paragraphs ..........60000.006 of Part I of this
notice of application +
[ ] with the following variations and additional terms:
Signature of [_] Judge[. ] Master
APPENDIX
[The fallowing information is provided for data collection purposes only and is of no legal
effect.)
THIS APPLICATION INVOLVES THE FOLLOWING:
discovery: comply with demand for documents
distovery: production of additional documents
other matters concerning document discovery
extend oral discovery
other matter concerning oral discovery
amend pleadings
add/changeé parties
OOOOROOOOOOOROHoOo
summary judgment
summary trial
service.
mediation
adjournments
proceedings at trial
case plan orders: amend
case plan orders: other
experts.This is the 1" Affidavit
of Jade Fraser in this. case
and it-was made on December.2-2; 2020
No-'S2013643
"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA .
BETWEEN: oo
“WED VORA.
PLAINTIFF
"AND: ee os
JOHN.DOE 1 and JOHN DOES 2-10
AFFIDAVIT
: i. Jade. Fraser, legal: adminis
North Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, AFFIRM AND SAY THAT:
Jd. Tam a legal administrative assistant employed by McConchie Law Corporation, solicitors
for the. Plaintiff, Ved Vora, and as such | have.personal knowledge of the matters hereinafter’:
“deposed to, save and except where stated to be on-informnation and belief.and ag to’ Such matters, 1
verily believe them tobe true.
2... Lverily ‘believe that Google LLC has in its possession; control or power hardcopy. and.
electronic: docunients containing’. information relating to the infrastructure: of the services «it
operates,” ‘including but not limited to documents and information stored on computer equipment:
and ‘media.
By. : “dn. this connection, J am: informed by Ryan. Purita, Computer Security Specialist’ & :
Forensic Examiner, who is employed by Sherlock Forensics.of Burnaby, British Columbia, and
verily believe as fellows:
a. An individual mustcreate a Google account to create a Gmail email account.
mugen SR
Vancouver Registry
DEFENDANTS.
tive: assistant, of 290:— 889 Harbourside Drive; in the City of,b. Each time a Google account is created, Google LLC records in a database and
weblogs maintained on its behalf inter alia the following information:
iii.
The name used to create the account;
The Gmail email address associated with the account;
All Google services associated with the account (e.g. Gmail, YouTube,
Google Drive, etc.);
iv. Any secondary email address(es) associated with the account;
v. The date the account was created;
vi. The Internet Protocol for the computer ftom which the account was
créated;
vii. A record. of the Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses for the computer(s) that
have logged in to the account; and
viii. Any phone number(s) associated with the account.
4, I verily believe that Twitter, Inc. has in its possession, control or power hardcopy and
electronic documents containing information relating to the infrastructure of the website on the
Internet at https://twitter.com/, including but not limited to documents and information stored on
computer equipment and media.
5. In this connection, I am informed by Ryan Purita and verily believe that each time a
Twitter account is created, Twitter, Inc. records. in a database and weblogs maintained on its
behalf inter alia the following information:
i. ‘The name used to create the account;
ii. The phone number(s) associated with the account;
iti. The date of birth associated with the account;
iv. The date the account was credted;v. The Internet Protocol for the computer from which the account was created;
vi. A record of the Internet Protocol. addresses for the computer(s) that have logged in
to the account; and
JADE PRSER
AFFIRMED BEFORE ME in the City of North
Vancouver, in the Province of British
Columbia, on this 22. day of December, 2020.
A Comnusioney Airing affidavits
for British Colufnbia
ALAN McCONCHIE
BARRISTER & SOLICITOR
Suite 290 - 889 Harbourside Drive
North Vancouver, B.C. V7P 381
See SS YYExhibit CSUPREME COURT.
. $4 COLUMBIA
OF PR SUVER REGISTRY
JAN 15 2021
No, S2013643
Vancouver Registry
. ENTERED
a3 IN THE |SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:
VED VORA
PLAINTIFF
AND:
JOHN DOE 1 and JOHN DOES 2 -10
DEFENDANTS
ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION
)
BEFORE WPSTER Vo 5. } January 15, 2021
ON THE APPLICATION of the Plaintiff, filed December 23, 2020, coming on for hearing at
Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 15, 2021, and on hearing BY MS TEAMS: Alan
McConchie, counsel for the Plaintiff; and no one else appearing, though duly served:
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1, Google LLC produce to counsel for the Plaintiff within twenty days of being served with
this Order copies of documents in its possession and control containing the subscriber
registration information associated with the Gmail account ved81168@gmail.com (the
“Gmail Account”), as well as the IP logins for the Gmail Account, to the extent that such
information or data is in the possession of and readily available to Google LLC as of the
date of this Order.
2. The Plaintiff acknowledges that Google LLC may inform the owner of the Gmail
Account of this request, in accordance with Google LLC’s usual policies.
3. Twitter, Inc. produce to counsel for the Plaintiff within twenty days of being served with
this Order copies of any and all documents in its possession and control containing the
subscriber registration information associated with the Twitter account @marco87138252
(the “Twitter Account”), as well as the IP logins for the Twitter Account, to the extent
that such information or data is in the possession of and readily available to Twitter. Inc.
as of the date of this Order.
4. There shall be no costs of this motion for or against Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc.5. The Plaintiff shall pay the reasonable costs incurred by Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc.
in complying with this Order, if requested to do so by Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc.
THE FOLLOWING PARTIE: ROVE THE FORM OF THIS ORDER:
Signatiire of lawyer for the Plaintiff
Alan Mec
McConchie Law Corporation L
A By the Court.
¢
Registrarat
REGEIVED
“reoz ThyNANUL £1
C- S23 20h
wEYING pue adq :juesy
SHOUD uery Vy
IZ91-886-F09 :euoyda[ay
ISEdLA Dd “TeAnoour,, YON
aALIC] apismogteH] 688 ~ 067
2 wonRIodiog Me] arypSuOQoy
=
Se
me = NOLLVOMIdd¥ WALAV ACVIN VACUO
— es
zs
=
‘== SLINVONSSAC
=
O1* ¢ SHO NHOf pue | AOd NHOL
‘CNV
SALLNIVTd
VuOA GHA
- ‘NFaMLaS
VIGINNTOO HSILMId AO LUNOD AWAAdNS FHL NI
Aysisay Joanosue A,
EVOELOTS “ONExhibit D@ ®
SUBP-035
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address):
| Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (222187); Ruben Pena (328106) FOR COURT USE OMY
KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
150 Post St., Suite 520, San Francisco, CA 94108
| TELEPHONENO: 419-YDD- 1199 FAX NO. 415-955-1158
EWAIL ADDRESS: jeff@KRInternétLaw.com: ruben@KRinternetLaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff
Court for county in which discovery is to be conducted: San Francisco Superior Court
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco
STREET ADORESS: 400 McAllister St.
MAILING ADDRESS: AQ) McAllister St.
OY, STATE, AND ZIP COPE: San Francisco, CA 94102
BRANCHNAME: Civic Center Courthouse
Court in which action is pending: Supreme Court of British Columbia
Name of Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia
street aoress: 800.Smithe Street
MAILING ADDRESS: 800 Smithe Street
OI, STATE, AND ZIP. COPE: Vancouver, BC V6Z 2E1
counteY: Canada
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Ved Vora CALIFORNIA CASE NUMBER (if any assigned by court):
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: John Doe 1, et al.
CASE NUMBER (of action pending outside Califomia):
SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS
IN ACTION PENDING OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA $2013643
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, if known):
Twitter, Inc., c/o C T Corp. Sys., 818 W. 7th St., Suite 930, Los Angeles, CA 90017
1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE BUSINESS RECORDS described in item 3, as follows:
To (name of deposition officer): Ruben Pena
On (date): February 8, 2021 © At (time): 40:00 a.m.
Location (address): 150 Post St., Suite 520, San Francisco, CA
Do not release the requested records to the deposition officer prior to the date and time stated above.
a CJ by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3, enclosed in a sealed inner
wrapper with the title and number of the action, name of witness, and date of subpoena clearly written on it. The inner
wrapper shall then be enclosed in an outer envelope or wrapper, sealed, and mailed to the deposition officer at the
address in item 1.
(7) by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3 to the deposition officer at the
witness's address, on receipt of payment in cash or by check of the reasonable costs of preparing the copy, as determined
under Evidence Code section 1563(b).
«eC by making the original business records described in item 3 available for inspection at your business address by the
attorney's representative and permitting copying at your business address under reasonable conditions during normal
business hours.
2. The records are to be produced by the date and time shown in item 1 (but not sooner than 20 days after the issuance of the
deposition subpoena, or 15 days after service, whichever date is later). Reasonable costs of locating records, making them
available or copying them, and postage, if any, are recoverable as set forth in Evidence Code section 1563(b). The records must be
accompanied by an affidavit of the custodian or other qualified witness pursuant to Evidence Code section 1561.
3. The records to be produced are described as follows (if electronically stored information is demanded, the form or forms in which
each type of information is to be produced may be specified):
[21 Continued on Attachment 3 (use form MC-025).
4, Attorneys of record in this action or parties without attorneys are (name, address, telephone number, and name of party
represented):
[1 Continued on Attachment 4 (use form MC-025). Page 4 of 2
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS | ©+«' cut Frocdie 52020 100-2029 200,
SUBP-035 [Rev. January 1, 2012] IN ACTION PENDING OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA Government Code, § 68097.1
" wuw.courts.ca.gov@ @
SUBP-035
‘CASE NUMBER (of action pending outside Califomia):
| PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Ved Vora
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: John Doe 1, et al.
5. If you have been served with this subpoena as a custodian of consumer or employee records under Code of Civil
Procedure section 1985.6 and a motion to quash or an objection has been served on you, a court order or agreement of
the parties, witnesses, and consumer or employee affected must be obtained before you are required to produce
consumer or employee records.
6. [] Other terms or provisions from out-of-state subpoena, if any (specify):
[1 Continued on Attachment 6 (use form MC-025).
DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE
FOR THE SUM OF $500 AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY.
Date issued: January 19, 2021
Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld _- >
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON ISSUING SUBPOENA)
Attorney for Plaintiff
(TITLE)
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA FOR
PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS
1. | served this Subpoena for Production of Business Records In Action Pending Outside California by personally delivering a copy
to the person served as follows:
a. Person served (name):
b. Address where served:
c. Date of delivery: d. Time of delivery:
e. Witness fees and mileage both ways (check one):
(1) [J were paid. Amount: ........... $
(2) 1] were not paid.
(3) were tendered to the witness's public entity employer as required by Government Code section 68097.2. The
amount tendered was (specify):
f. Fee forservice: ..........2--..0.0000e $
2. I received this subpoena for service on (date):
3. [-) Ialso served a completed Proof of Service of Notice to Consumer or Employee and Objection (form SUBP-025)
by personally delivering a copy to the person served as described in 1 above.
4. Person serving:
a Not a registered California process server
O
b. C1 California sheriff or marshal
« CJ] Registered California process server .
a CO Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server
e. [21 Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b)
«CJ Registered professional photocopier
g. [] exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451
h. Name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number:
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of (For California sheriff or marshal use only)
_ California that the foregoing is true and correct. I certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: Date: .
(SIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE)
SUBP-O35( Rev. January 1 20%2I SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Page 2 012
IN ACTION PENDING OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA1
Vora v. John Doe 1, et al. + Case No. $2013643
Attachment 3
Records to Be Produced
1. Google LLC produce to counsel for the Plaintiff within twenty days of being served
with this Order copies of documents in its possession and control containing the subscriber
registration information associated with the Gmail account ved81168@gmail.com (the “Gmail
Account”), as well as the IP logins for the Gmail Account, to the extent that such information or
data is in the possession of and readily available to Google LLC as‘of the date of this Order.
2. The Plaintiff acknowledges that Google LLC may inform the owner of the Gmail
Account of this request, in accordance with Google LLC’s usual policies.
3. Twitter, Inc. produce to counsel for the Plaintiff within twenty days of being served
with this Order copies of any and all documents in its possession and control containing the
subscriber. registration information associated with the Twitter account @marco87138252 (the
“Twitter Account”), as well as the IP logins for the Twitter Account, to the extent that such
information or data is in the possession of and readily available to Twitter. Inc. as of the date of
this Order.
4, There shall be no costs of this motion for or against Google LLC and/or Twitter,
Inc.
5. The Plaintiff shall pay the reasonable costs incurred by Google LLC and/or Twitter,
Inc. in complying with this Order, if requested to do so by Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc.
The above requests specifically exclude any communications, contents of a user's private
mail messages, or stored content files held or maintained on behalf of a user that are protected by
the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2701, et seq.Vora v. John Doe 1, et al.
Alan McConchie
McConchie Law Corporation
889 Harbourside Drive, Suite 290
North Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada, V7P 3S1
(604) 988-1621
Counsel for Plaintiff
Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld
Ruben Pefia
Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP
150 Post St., Suite 520
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 955-1155
California Counsel for Plaintiff
Defendant John Doe I
Defendants John Does 2-10
Attachment 4
Attorneys of Record or Parties Without Attorneys
Case No. $20136437“ SUPREME COURT.
COLUMBIA
OfaReouy BR REGISTRY
JAN 15 2021
vs ENTERED
No. $2013643
Vancouver Registry
SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:
VED VORA
PLAINTIFF
AND:
JOHN DOE | and JOHN DOES 2-10
DEFENDANTS
ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION
2 2
BEFORE } westeR Vos. } January 15, 2021
ON THE APPLICATION of the Plaintiff, filed December 23, 2020, coming on for hearing at
Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 15, 2021, and on hearing BY MS TEAMS: Alan:
McConchie, counsel for the Plaintiff, and no one else appearing, though duly served;
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. Google LLC produce to counsel for the Plaintiff within twenty days of being served with
this Order copies of documents in its possession and control containing the subscriber
- registration information associated with the Gmail account ved81168@gmail.com (the
“Gmail Account”), as well as the IP logins for the Gmail Account, to the extent that such
information or data is in the possession of and readily available to Google LLC as of the
date of this Order.
2, The Plaintiff acknowledges that Google LLC may inform the owner of the Gmail
Account of this request, in accordance with Google LLC’s usual policies.
3, Twitter, Inc. produce to counsel for the Plaintiff within twenty days of being served with
this Order copies of any and all documents in its possession and control containing the
subscriber registration information associated with the Twitter account @marco87138252
(the “Twitter Account”), as well as the IP logins for the Twitter Account, to the extent
that such information or data is in the possession of and readily available to Twitter. Inc.
as of the date of this Order.
4, There shall be no costs of this motion for or against Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc.5. The Plaintiff shall pay the reasonable costs incurred by Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc.
in complying with this Order, if requested to do so by Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc.
THE FOLLOWING PARTIE: ROVE THE FORM OF THIS ORDER:
Signature of lawyer for the Plaintiff
Alan McC ie
McConchie Law Corporation
By the Court.
¢
Registrar
YD)REGEIVED
“207 TS wnNel:
JAN: 4-3 2021
C- S88 EAb
weyING pue sdq sues y
_diouooH uery vuny
1Z91-836-r09 ‘euoydelay
ISEdLA Od ‘eAnooueA YON,
SAL SpISMOGIeH 688 — 067
a uoneiodieg Me] erpouoDoyy
=
3
= NOILVOUIddV WELAV SAVIN WAGUO
ae
z
SINVCNSAaa
=
01-¢ SHO NHOf pue T dod NHOL
[CNV
AALLNIV1d
VaOA GAA
‘NEMA
VISINNTOO HSILIM dO LYNOO AINAUdNS FHL NI
Aysisoy JOANosue A,
EPIELOTS “ON,ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name and Address}: TELEPHONE NO.. FOR COURT USE ONLY
Karl Kronenberger, 226112 (415)955-1155 Ext 121
Kronenberger Rosenfeld ‘
150 Post Street, Suite 520
San Francisco, CA 94108 Ref. No. or File No.
ATTORNEY FOR (Nome): Plaintiff McConchie Vora
Insert name of court, judicial district or branch court, if any:
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County-San Francisco-McAllister Branch
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
PLAINTIFF:
Ved Vora
DEFENDANT:
John Doe 1, et al.
DATE: TIME: pePrio: | CASE NUMBER:
PROOF OF SERVICE 02/08/2021 10:00AM $2013643
BY FAX
1. At the time of service | was a citizen of the United States; over 18 years of age and not a party to this action, and | served copies of:
Subpoena for Production of Business Records i
Preview
7; KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD 150.Post Street, Svite 520 San Francisco, CA 9at08 = oO ON OO aA FF WO DY 10 KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP Karl S. Kronenberger (Bar No. 226112) Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Bar No. 222187) Ruben Pefia (CA Bar No..328106) 150 Post Street, Suite 520 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 955-1155 Facsimile: (415) 955-1158 karl@KRinternetLaw.com jeff@KRInternetLaw.com ruben@KRinternetLaw.com Attorneys for Petitioner Ved Vora FILED SUPERIOR Ci COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO MAY 08 2021 GLEBK OF IE COURT We. ANGELICASUNGA YORK SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO VED VORA, an individual, Petitioner, v. TWITTER, INC., Respondent. VED VORA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE 4 and. JOHN DOES 2-10, Defendants. Case No. Case nOPF-217-5 1743 4 DISCOVERY DECLARATION OF JEFFREY M. ROSENFELD IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO COMPEL TWITTER, INC, TO RESPOND TO SUBPOENA ISSUED FOR CASE PENDING IN FOREIGN JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO C.C.P. §2029.600 In re out-of-state action: Ved Vora v. John Doe 1 and John Does 2-10, Case No. S2013643 In the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada Filed by Plaintiff Ved Vora Date: June 4, 2021 Time: 9:00 a.m. Ctrm: 302 Before: The Hon. Ethan P. Schulman ROSENFELD DECL ISO PETITIONER’S PETITION TO COMPEL= |, Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, declare as follows: 1. | am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of California and before this Court. | am partner with the law firm of Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP, California counsel for Petitioner Ved Vora (“Petitioner”). Unless otherwise stated, | have © . personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration. 2. On December 22, 2020, Petitioner filed a Notice of Civil Claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, Case No. $2013643, asserting a claim of defamation under Canadian law (the “Canadian Action”). A true and correct copy of the Notice of Civil Claim is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As described in Exhibit A, Petitioner o an. Oa FF WOW DY has alleged that beginning on or about October 25, 2020, unknown Defendants John a 0s 20 Does 1-10 began engaging in a campaign of defaming Petitioner for the purpose of = nyo destroying his reputation. Specifically, Defendants ‘in the Canadian Action published = wo numerous statements on Twitter and in emails falsely stating that Petitioner is a rapist and a criminal. 3. On December 23, 2020, Canadian counsel for Petitioner applied for early = 03 a a discovery in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to determine Defendants’ identities. =a N A true and correct copy of Petitioner's Application for early discovery and supporting 150 Post Street, Suite g20 San Francisco, CA 94108 = a = oc documentation in the Canadian Action is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Petitioner served 7; KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD = o fetes Twitter with copies of Petitioner's Notice of Civil Claim and Notice of Application for early “e nN Oo discovery and supporting documentation on December 24, 2020. On December 29, 2020, 21 | Petitioner served Twitter with complete copies of Petitioner's Notice of Civil Claim and 22 | Notice of Application for early discovery and supporting documentation. On January 15, 23 | 2021, after a hearing, the Canadian Court granted Petitioner's Application for early 24 | discovery and issued an order (the “Canadian Order”), which directed Google LLC and 25 || Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) to produce documents to identify Defendants. A true and correct 26 | copy of the Canadian Order is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Specifically, the Canadian 27 | Order ordered Twitter to produce “any and all documents in its possession and control 28 containing the subscriber registration information associated with the Twitter account Case No. 4 ROSENFELD DECL ISO PETITIONER’S. PETITION TO COMPELa = w 2 uw “ ° ae at a @ as a a z as Zz ° AS BM 150 Post Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94108 oOo ODN OO Fk WOW NY = Mh MN NY NY NY YB NY ND B= @ |@w sow ew Baoan A A a on Oak OW YO SF DG ON DOD TD BRB WN = @marco87 138252 (the ‘Twitter Account’), as well as the IP logins for the Twitter Account, to the extent that such information or data is in the possession of and readily available to Twitter, Inc...”. 4. On January 20, 2021, my office issued a Subpoena for Production of Business Records in Action Pending Outside California pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) §2029.350 to Twitter (the “Subpoena’), which incorporated the terms of the Canadian Order. A true and correct copy of Petitioner's Subpoena to Twitter is attached hereto as Exhibit D. The information requested by Petitioner from Twitter is limited to Petitioner's need to identify the Defendants; the Subpoena seeks only information about the identity and location of the anonymous Defendants, such as subscriber registration information and IP addresses. Importantly, the Subpoena does not seek protected speech activities or stored electronic communications, such as the contents of communications themselves. 5. On February 5, 2021, Twitter served written objections to the Subpoena. A true and correct copy of Twitter's objections is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Twitter's substantive objections to the Subpoena are two-fold. First, Twitter objected that a U.S. court has not considered and imposed the First Amendment safeguards required before a litigant may be permitted to identify an anonymous speaker. Second, Twitter objected on the grounds that Petitioner's Subpoena constituted unauthorized early discovery in violation of California law. 6. On February 9, 2021, my office served written responses to Twitter's objections. A true and correct copy of Petitioner's response to Twitter’s objections is attached hereto as Exhibit F. On March 2, 2021, March 11, 2021, and April 7, 2021, | met and conferred via telephone with Twitter’s outside counsel regarding Twitter's objections to Petitioner's Subpoena. Despite the parties’ efforts to resolve this matter without involving the court, Twitter maintains its objection that a U.S. court should consider First Amendment standards and, if those standards are met, order the disclosure of the identifying information for the anonymous Defendants. Case No. 2 ROSENFELD DECL ISO PETITIONER’S PETITION TO COMPEL4 7. Based on the date of service of Twitter's objections to Petitioner's 2 | Subpoena, the original deadline for Petitioner to file any motion to compel Twitter's 3 || response to the Subpoena was April 6, 2021. On March 24, 2021, Twitter's counsel 4 | agreed to an extension of time for Petitioner to file any motion to compel Twitter's 5 || compliance with the Subpoena from April 6, 2021 to May 6, 2021. A true and correct copy 6 | of an email confirming this extension of time is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 7 8. Although my office attempted to provide notice to the affected Twitter users 8 || (Defendants in the Canadian Action) by serving Petitioner’s Notice of Civil Claim and a 9 | Application for early discovery on Twitter, we were not able to directly notify the affected 3 10 | users because the Twitter account at issue is no longer active; thus, there is no feasible 2 s 11 | way to provide any additional notice to the affected user. However, in its February 5, 2021 2 3 12 | objection letter, Twitter advised Petitioner that it had sent a notice and a copy of ee i 13 | Petitioner's Subpoena to any email address(es) associated with any account properly “ 3 14 | identified in Petitioner's Subpoena. See Ex. E attached hereto. & i 15 z 7 16 | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 2 17 | foregoing is true and correct. a * 18 : . WE OFL ite 19 | DATED: May 3, 2021 By: 4 SG 20 oe Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 3 ROSENFELD DECL ISO PETITIONER'S PETITION TO COMPELExhibit Aeo . - oe SUPREME COURT. oe S2015 643... j OF BRITISH COLUMBIA — pd WANCOUVER REGISTRY © No. “Mancoaver Reisty BEC: 22700 : INTHE SUPREME COURT ‘OF BRI PASH. ‘COLUMBIA 4 eo Vora : “PLAINTIFF “= JOHIN DOE 1 and JOHN DOES 2-10 DEFENDANTS a enn BO RRA SONS NOOR (eSB Srriorcacitnetncischaaa eit (by serve a copy. ofthe filed response to civil claim and counterclaim ‘on the . ~ plaintia and 9 on: any new. Parties named i an the. sonnei : : by @ ify ‘ion wer served: with the: notice of. civit claim ny anywhere | in Canada, with “ . 21 day after that service,(c) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49 days after that service, or (d) if the time for response to civil claim ‘has been set by order of the court, within that time. : CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS INTRODUCTION 1. The Plaintiff Ved Vora is ordinarily resident in the City of Surrey, in the Province of British Columbia. 2. The identity of the Defendant John Doe 1 and’the identities of the Defendants John Does 2 to 10 are not yet known to the Plaintiff. As soon as their identities become known, the Plaintiff will amend the style of cause and the statement of facts in this notice of civil claim to substitute their true names. INTRODUCTION 3. On or-about October 25, 2020 the Defendant John Doe 1 aid the Defendants John Does 2 to 10 commenced a campaign of vilification of the Plaintiff for the predominant purpose of destroying, diminishing or undermining his reputation, exposing him to hatred ridicule and contempt, and causing others to shun and.avoid him. 4. The campaign of vilification consisted of the following publications of and concerning the Plaintiff. a. Defamatory Tweets: i, On the Twitter page-of Pivot Canada on October 25,2020; ii. On the Twitter page of the Plaintiff and tagging the Twitter usernames of the City of Port Coquitlam, TB Canada Company d.b.a. Taco Bell Canada and the City of Surrey on November 1, 2020;iii, On the Twitter page of the Plaintiff and tagging the Twitter usernames of TransLink, Pivot Canada and the University of Queensland on November 1,,2020; b. Defamatory emails sent to: i. The Sexual Violence Support & Prevention Office of Simon Fraser University on November 24, 2020 at 5:46 PM; ii, The Parks, Recreation & Culture Department of the City of Surrey on November 24, 2020 at 7:18 PM; iii, The Department of the Premier and Cabinet of the Queensland Government (Australia) on November 25, 2020 at 2:24 PM; iv. Glenda Jacobs on December 5, 2020 at 12:15 PM. PARTICULARS [Note: The defamatory: expression quoted below in this notice of civil claim incorporates the spelling mistakes and grammatical errors made in the original publications.] DEFAMATORY TWEETS October 25 2020 Tweet 5. On October 25, 2020 the Defendant John Doe 1 and the Defendants John Does 2 to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published a Tweet from the Twitter username. @marco87138252 on the Twitter page of Pivot Canada on . the Internet at https://twitter.com/pivot_canada containing the following words of and concerning the Plaintiff (the “October 25 2020 Tweet”): - Stop your rapist employee, criminal ved vora 6. The words in the October 25 2020 Tweet are false and. defamatory of the Plaintiff in their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the October 25 2020 Tweet conveyed the defamatory inferential meanings set out in paragraphs 19.c., 19.d. and 19.e.First November 1 2020 Tweet 7. On November 1, 2020 the Defendant John Doe 1 and the Defendants John Does 2 to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published a Tweet from. the Twitter username @marco87138252 on the Twitter page of the Plaintiff on the Intetnet at https://twitter.com/ferret_parrot, (the “Plaintiffs Twitter Page”) and to the Twitter accounts of City of Port Coquitlam, TB Canada Company d.b.a. Taco Bell Canada and the City of Surrey containing the following words of and concerning the Plaintiff (the “First November 1 2020 Tweet”): ved vora'is a rapist The words in the First November | 2020: Tweet are false and defamatory of the Plaintiff in their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the First November 1 2020 Tweet conveyed the defamatory inferential meanings set out in paragraphs 19.c., 19.d. and 19.¢. Second November 1 2020 Tweet 9. On November 1, 2020 the Defendant John Doe 1 and the Defendants John Does 2 to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published a Tweet from the Twitter username @marco87138252 on the Plaintiff's Twitter Page and to the Twitter accounts of TransLink, Pivot Canada and the University of Queensland containing the following words of and concerning the Plaintiff the (“Second November 1 2020 Tweet”): Translink Ved is a loser, scam, trying to intimidate you don’t listen to him ved is a rapist 10. The words in the Second November 1 2020 Tweet.are false and defamatory of the Plaintiff in their literal meaning. Furthér, or in the alternative, the Second November 1 2020 Tweet conveyed the defamatory inferential meanings set out in paragraphs 19.c., 19.d. and 19.¢. DEFAMATORY EMAILS November 24 2020 5:46 PM Email 11. On November 24, 2020 at 5:46 PM the Defendant John Doe I and the Defendants John Does 2 to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published an email in British Columbia from the email account “ved vorasshole ved81168@gmail.com” about the Plaintiff to the Sexual Co.Violence Support & Prevention Office of Simon Fraser University containing the following words of and concerning the Plaintiff (the “November 24 2020.5:46 PM Email”): Subject: a-hole ved vore Text: Ved you are an abuser stop it, 12. The words in the November 24 2020 5:46 PM Email are false and defamatory of the Plaintiff in their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the November 24 2020 5:46 PM Email conveyed the defamatory inferential meaning set out in paragraph 19.a. November 24 2020 7:18 PM Email 13. On November 24, 2020 at 7:18 PM the Defendant John Doe | and the Defendants John Does 2.to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published an email in British Columbia from the. email account. “ved vorasshole ved81168@gmail.com” about the Plaintiff to the Parks, Recreation & Culture Department of the City of Surrey containing the following words of and concerning the Plaintiff (the “November 24 2020 7:18 PM Email”): Subject: Stop Ved Vora - Mesquite Text: you need to stop your illegal online activities!!!! 14. The words in the November 24 2020 7:18 PM Email are false and defamatory of the Plaintiff in their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the November 24 2020 7:18 PM Email conveyed thé defamatory inferential meaning set.out in paragraph 19.b. November 25 2020 2:24 PM Email 15. On November 25, 2020 at 2:24 PM the Defendant John Doe 1 and the Defendants John Does 2 to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published an email in British Columbia from the email account “ved vorasshole yed81168@zmail.com” about the Plaintiff to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet of the Queensland Government (Australia) containing the following words of and concerning the Plaintiff (the “November 25 2020 2:24 PM Email”): Subject: Urgent Stop Criminal Ved Vora 5Text: more evidence to come, i 16. The. words in the November 25 2020 2:24 PM Email I are false and defamatory of the - Plaintiff in their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the November 25 2020 2:24 PM Email conveyed the defamatory inferential meaning set out in paragraph 19.f. December 5 2020 12:15 PM Email 17. On December 5, 2020 at 12:15 PM the Defendant John Doe 1 and the Defendants John Does 2 to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published an email in British Columbia from the email account “ved vorasshole ved81168@gmail.com” about the Plaintiff to Glenda Jacobs containing the: following words of and concerning the Plaintiff (the “December 5 2020 12:15. PM Email”): Subject: hi Text: he is a rapist, 18. The words in the December 5 2020 12:15 PM Email are false and defamatory of the Plaintiff in their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the December 5 2020 12:15 PM Email conveyed the defamatory inferential meanings set out in paragraphs 19.c., 19.d. and 19.¢. INFERENTIAL MEANINGS 19. The following false and defamatory inferential meanings of and concerning the Plaintiff are conveyed to the average, ordinary reader as a matter of impression by expression complained of in this notice of civil claim: a. The Plaintiffis guilty of committing physical abuse; b. The Plaintiffis guilty of illegal conduct on the Internet; c, The Plaintiff is a rapist; d. The Plaintiffis guilty of sexual assaults; e, The Plaintiff is guilty of the sexual offences described in sections 271, 272 and 273 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46;f. The Plaintiff is guilty of criminal conduct; and/or g. One or more of the above. PUBLICATION 20. Each of the October 25 2020 Tweet, the First November 1 2020 Tweet and the Second November 1 2020 Tweet was accessed, downloaded, read and/or viewed by many persons in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada.and the world. JOINT LIABILITY 21. The Defendants each aided or participated in the acts and omissions complained of in this notice of civil claim pursuant to. 4 common design and caused, procured, authorized, concurred in and/or approved publication of the defamatory expression. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, each Defendant created or assisted in creating the content of the aforesaid defamatory expression and further (or in the alternative): a. Approved, authorized, incited or encouraged publication of the aforesaid defamatory expression; and/or b. Participated in causing the dissemination of the aforesaid defamatory expression to third parties or by facilitating republication as alleged below; and/or c, Communicated to third parties their agreement with the content of the defamatory expression. EXPRESS MALICE 22. The Defendants each maliciously published the defamatory expression complained of in this notice of civil claim with the knowledge that the literal and popular innuendo meanings conveyed by that expression were false, or alternatively, with reckless indifference whether those meanings were true or false. Alternatively, the Defendants each published. the defamatory expression for the predominant purpose of injuring the Plaintiff.DAMAGES 23. 24, 25. The Defendants have each been guilty of reprehensible, insulting, high-handed, spiteful, malicious and oppressive conduct and such conduct by the Defendants justifies the court in imposing a substantial penalty of exemplary damages on the Defendants plus an award of special costs in favour of the Plaintiff, in addition to an award of general damages for injury to reputation. The Plaintiff will rely upon the entire conduct of the Defendants before and after the commencement of this action to the.date of judgment in this action. The defamatory expression complained of in this notice of civil claim has caused and continues to cause injury, loss and damage to the Plaintiff, including: a. Substantial, and persisting injury to reputation; b. Injury to pride and self-confidence; c. Severe emotional distress; d. Injury to:professional relationships; and was deliberately calculated by each Defendant to expose the Plaintiffito contempt, ridicule and hatred, and to. cause other persons to shun or avoid the Plaintiff, and to lower the Plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of the community, all of which has in fact occurred. As a further consequence of the publication and republication of the defamatory expression complained of in this notice of civil claim, the Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur loss, damage and expense, and will incur loss, damage and expense in the future, including special damages including, but not limited to, loss of income (past, present and future), particulars of which will be provided on request. INJUNCTION26. Each Defendant is likely to continue to publish the defamatoty expression complained of in this notice of civil claim unless restrained from doing so by an order of this Honourable Court. Part 2: RELIEFSOUGHT The Plaintiff therefore claims against each Defendant as.follows: a. general damagés; ‘b. aggravated damages; c. exemplary or punitive damages; d. special damages; €. an interlocutory and permanent injunction to restrain each Defendant, and other persons with knowledge of the injunction, from any further publication of the expression complained of, or expression to the same effect; f. interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. c. 79 g- special costs plus disbursements and taxes; and. h. such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may seer just. Part 3: LEGAL BASIS 1. The Plaintiff relies on the common law relating to libel, the assessment of damages and costs, and on thé principles of equity relating to injunctive relief. Plaintif?’ 's address for service: McConchie Law Corporation 290 .— 889 Harbourside Drive © North Vancouver, BC V7P 3S1Fax number address for service (if any): 604-988-1610 E-mail address for service (if any): alan@libelandprivacy.com; meconchie@libelandprivacy.com; and assistant@libelandprivacy.com. (ALL) Place of trial: Vancouver, British Columbia The address of the registry is: 800 Smithe Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 2E1 Date: December 21, 2020- aes Signature“of, nee TRlawyer for plaintiff McConchie Law Corporation Alan McConchie Rule 7-1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states: (1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period, (a) prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists (i) all documents that are or have been in the party's possession or control and that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a imaterial fact, and (ii) all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and .(b) serve the list on all parties of record. Appendix [The following information is provided for data collection purposes only and is of no legal effect.) Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM: 10Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING: [Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case.] A personal injury arising out of [ ] a motor vehicle accident [ ] medical malpractice. [ ] another cause A dispute concerning: [ ] contaminated sites. [ ] construction defects [ ] real property (real estate) [ ] personal property [ ] the provision of goods or'services or other géneral commercial matters [ ] investment losses [ ] the lending of money { J an-employment relationship [ ] a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate [X ] a matter not listed here Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES: [Check all boxes below that apply to this case] [ Jaclass action [ ] maritime law [ ] aboriginal law [ ] constitutional law [ ] conflict:of laws { X ] none of the above [ ] do not know TkPart 4: [fan enactment is being relied on, specify. Do not list more than 3 enactments.] 12Exhibit B‘No. $2013643- Vancouver Registry : Sauna NN "VED VORA “PLAINTIFF “JOHN DOE t'and JOHN DOES 2-10 DEFENDANTS Part 1: _ ORDERS SOUGHT. and dointtal eontaininig ‘the ~! with ‘the Gmail “account ’. well as:the JP. logi for the Gmail’. is in the Possession of, and readily , The Plaintift acknowledges that Google LC may inform the owner of the Gmail : . eae of. Mas request, 4a. accordince with. th-Google LLC’ ’s usual pdlicies. are within, twenty days of being. served ~ in its possession and control. containing ‘aforinetion associated with the Twitter. accotint * ee “Account”, as well as the IP logins - for. the Twitter : available to Dyit fic. as sg oF the date-of-this Ord 3 code (o There shall be no ce fF thi motion for or against Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc. :-2- 5. The Plaintiff shall pay the reasonable costs incurred by Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc. in complying with this Order, if requested to do so by Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc. Part 2:FACTUAL BASIS 1. ‘The Plaintiff commenced this action on December 22, 2020 by notice of civil claim (“NOCC”). 2. Theidentity of the Defendant John Doe | and the identities of the Defendants John Does 2 to: 10.are not yet known to the Plaintiff: 3. The NOCC in this action alleges inter alia that: DEFAMATORY TWEETS October 25 2020 Tweet 5. On October 25, 2020 the Defendant John Doe I and the Defendants John Does 2 to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published a Tweet from the Twitter username @marco87138252 on the Twitter page of Pivot Canada on the Internet at https://twitter.com/pivot_canada containing the following. words of and concerning the Plaintiff (the “October 25 2020 Tweet”): Stop your rapist employee, criminal ved vora 6. The words in the October 25 2020 Tweet are false and defamatory of the Plaintiff in their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the October 25 2020 Tweet conveyed the defamatory inferential meanings set out in paragraphs 19.c., 19.d. and 19.e, DEFAMATORY EMAILS November 24 2020 5:46. PM Email 11. On November 24, 2020 at 5:46 PM the Defendant John Doe 1 and the Defendants John Does 2 to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published an email in British Columbia from the email account “ved vorasshole ved81168@gmail.com” about the Plaintiff to the Sexual Violence Support & Prevention Office of Simon Fraser University containing the following words of and concerning the Plaintiff (the “November 24 2020 5:46 PM Email”):Subject: a--hole ved vore Text: Ved you are an abuser stop it, 12. The words in the November 24 2020 5:46 PM Email are false and defamatory of the Plaintiff in their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the November 24 2020 5:46 PM Email conveyed the defamatory inferential meaning set out in paragraph 19.a. December § 2020 12:15 PM Email 17. On December 5, 2020 at 12;15 PM the Defendant John Doe 1 and the Defendants John Does 2 to 10 (or alternatively one or more of them) published an email in British Columbia from. the email account “ved vorasshole ved811 68@gmail.com” about the Plaintiff to Glenda Jacobs containing the following words of and concerning the Plaintiff (the “December 5 2020 12:15 PM Email”): , Subject: hi Text: he is a rapist, 18. The words in the. December 5 2020 12:15 PM Email are false and defamatory of the Plaintiff in their literal meaning. Further, or in the alternative, the December 5 2020 12:15 PM Email conveyed the defamatory inferential meanings set out in paragraphs 19.c., 19.d, and 19.e. An individual must create a Google account to create a Gmail email account. Each time a Google account is created, Google LLC records in a database and weblogs maintained on its behalf inter alia the following information: i The.name used to create the account; ii. The Gmail email address associated with the account; iii. All Google services associated with the account (e.g. Gmail, YouTube, Google Drive, ete.); iv. Any secondary email address(es) associated with the account;-4- v. The date the account was created; vi, The Internet Protocol for the computer from which the account was created; vii. A record of the Internet Protocol addresses for the computer(s) that have logged in to the account; and viii. Any phone number(s) associated with the account. Affidavit #1 of Jade Fraser 6. Twitter, Inc. operates the website at https://twitter.com/. 7. Each time a Twitter account is created, Twitter, Inc. records in a database and weblogs maintained on its behalf inter alia the following information: ix. The riame used to créate the account; xX. The phone number(s) associated with the account; Xi. The date of birth associated with the account; xii. The date the account was created; xiii, The Internet Protocol for the computer from which the account was created; xiv. A record of the Internet Protocol addresses for the computer(s) that have logged in to the account; and Affidavit #1 of Jade Fraser Part3; LEGAL BASIS 1. The Plaintiff relies on Rule 7-1(18) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. 2. The documents sought on this application are relevant to proving the identity of the person(s) responsible for publishing the defamatory publications complained of in the NOCC. 3. Rule 7-1(18).is to be interpreted liberally, with a view to providing any party to an action the right to pre-trial inspection. of documents relevant to the proceedings but in the possession or control of a third patty: McLachlin & Taylor, British Columbia Practice, Third Edition, p. 7-142.1 to 7-143. 4. It is reasonable to assume; on. the basis of the material filed in support of this application, that Google LLC and Twitter, Inc. have in their possession documents that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact. Century Services Inc. v.-5- LeRoy, 2012 BCSC 1079 at para. 109; Texada. Land Corp. v, Texada Logging Ltd., 2003 BCSC 486 at para. 10 citing Dufault v. Stevens and Stevens (1978), 6 B.C.L.R. 199 (C.A.). 5. Jt is not necessary that the applicant persuade the court that specific documentation does exist. The existence, nature and extent of any specific document cannot be known until production is made. The requirement that the applicant demonstrate that the non-party have documentation in its possession is satisfied in the event that, by reference to the non-party's association with the subject matter of the litigation, it is reasonable to assume that such documentation would likely exist. The evidence satisfies this test. Texada Land Corp. v. Texada Logging Ltd..at para. 14. Part4: MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON 1. Affidavit #1 of Jade Fraser. 2. The pleadings and proceeding herein. 3.. Such further documents as counsel shall advise: The applicant estimates that the application will take 5 minutes. [Check the correct box.] &] This matter is within the jurisdiction of a master. O This matter is not within the jurisdiction ofa master. TO THE PERSONS RECEIVING THIS NOTICE OF APPLICATION: If you wish to respond to the application, you.must, within 5 business days after service of this notice of application or, if this application is brought under Rule 9-7, within 8 business days after service of this notice of application, (a) file. an application response in Form 33, (b) _ file the original of every affidavit, and of every other document, that (i). you intend to refer to at the hearing of this application, and (ii) has:not already been filed in the proceeding, and (c) serve on the: applicant 2 copies of the following, and on every other party of record oné copy:of the following: (i), a copy of the filed application response; (ii) a copy of each of the filed affidavits and other documents that you intend to refer to at the hearing of this application and that has not already been served on that person; (iii) if this application is brought under Rule 9-7, any notice that you are required to give under Rule 9-7(9).Date: December 22, 2020 Signature of Kiyyer for applicants Alan Mc€onthie McConchie Law Corporation Solicitor for the Plaintiff CONTACT INFORMATION: McCONCHIE LAW CORPORATION 290 - 889 Harbourside Drive North Vancouver, BC V7P 381 Telephone: 778-896-0084 alan@libelandprivacy.com To be completed by the court only: Order made [] in the terms requested in paragraphs ..........60000.006 of Part I of this notice of application + [ ] with the following variations and additional terms: Signature of [_] Judge[. ] Master APPENDIX [The fallowing information is provided for data collection purposes only and is of no legal effect.) THIS APPLICATION INVOLVES THE FOLLOWING: discovery: comply with demand for documents distovery: production of additional documents other matters concerning document discovery extend oral discovery other matter concerning oral discovery amend pleadings add/changeé parties OOOOROOOOOOOROHoOo summary judgment summary trial service. mediation adjournments proceedings at trial case plan orders: amend case plan orders: other experts.This is the 1" Affidavit of Jade Fraser in this. case and it-was made on December.2-2; 2020 No-'S2013643 "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA . BETWEEN: oo “WED VORA. PLAINTIFF "AND: ee os JOHN.DOE 1 and JOHN DOES 2-10 AFFIDAVIT : i. Jade. Fraser, legal: adminis North Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, AFFIRM AND SAY THAT: Jd. Tam a legal administrative assistant employed by McConchie Law Corporation, solicitors for the. Plaintiff, Ved Vora, and as such | have.personal knowledge of the matters hereinafter’: “deposed to, save and except where stated to be on-informnation and belief.and ag to’ Such matters, 1 verily believe them tobe true. 2... Lverily ‘believe that Google LLC has in its possession; control or power hardcopy. and. electronic: docunients containing’. information relating to the infrastructure: of the services «it operates,” ‘including but not limited to documents and information stored on computer equipment: and ‘media. By. : “dn. this connection, J am: informed by Ryan. Purita, Computer Security Specialist’ & : Forensic Examiner, who is employed by Sherlock Forensics.of Burnaby, British Columbia, and verily believe as fellows: a. An individual mustcreate a Google account to create a Gmail email account. mugen SR Vancouver Registry DEFENDANTS. tive: assistant, of 290:— 889 Harbourside Drive; in the City of,b. Each time a Google account is created, Google LLC records in a database and weblogs maintained on its behalf inter alia the following information: iii. The name used to create the account; The Gmail email address associated with the account; All Google services associated with the account (e.g. Gmail, YouTube, Google Drive, etc.); iv. Any secondary email address(es) associated with the account; v. The date the account was created; vi. The Internet Protocol for the computer ftom which the account was créated; vii. A record. of the Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses for the computer(s) that have logged in to the account; and viii. Any phone number(s) associated with the account. 4, I verily believe that Twitter, Inc. has in its possession, control or power hardcopy and electronic documents containing information relating to the infrastructure of the website on the Internet at https://twitter.com/, including but not limited to documents and information stored on computer equipment and media. 5. In this connection, I am informed by Ryan Purita and verily believe that each time a Twitter account is created, Twitter, Inc. records. in a database and weblogs maintained on its behalf inter alia the following information: i. ‘The name used to create the account; ii. The phone number(s) associated with the account; iti. The date of birth associated with the account; iv. The date the account was credted;v. The Internet Protocol for the computer from which the account was created; vi. A record of the Internet Protocol. addresses for the computer(s) that have logged in to the account; and JADE PRSER AFFIRMED BEFORE ME in the City of North Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, on this 22. day of December, 2020. A Comnusioney Airing affidavits for British Colufnbia ALAN McCONCHIE BARRISTER & SOLICITOR Suite 290 - 889 Harbourside Drive North Vancouver, B.C. V7P 381 See SS YYExhibit CSUPREME COURT. . $4 COLUMBIA OF PR SUVER REGISTRY JAN 15 2021 No, S2013643 Vancouver Registry . ENTERED a3 IN THE |SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: VED VORA PLAINTIFF AND: JOHN DOE 1 and JOHN DOES 2 -10 DEFENDANTS ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION ) BEFORE WPSTER Vo 5. } January 15, 2021 ON THE APPLICATION of the Plaintiff, filed December 23, 2020, coming on for hearing at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 15, 2021, and on hearing BY MS TEAMS: Alan McConchie, counsel for the Plaintiff; and no one else appearing, though duly served: THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1, Google LLC produce to counsel for the Plaintiff within twenty days of being served with this Order copies of documents in its possession and control containing the subscriber registration information associated with the Gmail account ved81168@gmail.com (the “Gmail Account”), as well as the IP logins for the Gmail Account, to the extent that such information or data is in the possession of and readily available to Google LLC as of the date of this Order. 2. The Plaintiff acknowledges that Google LLC may inform the owner of the Gmail Account of this request, in accordance with Google LLC’s usual policies. 3. Twitter, Inc. produce to counsel for the Plaintiff within twenty days of being served with this Order copies of any and all documents in its possession and control containing the subscriber registration information associated with the Twitter account @marco87138252 (the “Twitter Account”), as well as the IP logins for the Twitter Account, to the extent that such information or data is in the possession of and readily available to Twitter. Inc. as of the date of this Order. 4. There shall be no costs of this motion for or against Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc.5. The Plaintiff shall pay the reasonable costs incurred by Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc. in complying with this Order, if requested to do so by Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc. THE FOLLOWING PARTIE: ROVE THE FORM OF THIS ORDER: Signatiire of lawyer for the Plaintiff Alan Mec McConchie Law Corporation L A By the Court. ¢ Registrarat REGEIVED “reoz ThyNANUL £1 C- S23 20h wEYING pue adq :juesy SHOUD uery Vy IZ91-886-F09 :euoyda[ay ISEdLA Dd “TeAnoour,, YON aALIC] apismogteH] 688 ~ 067 2 wonRIodiog Me] arypSuOQoy = Se me = NOLLVOMIdd¥ WALAV ACVIN VACUO — es zs = ‘== SLINVONSSAC = O1* ¢ SHO NHOf pue | AOd NHOL ‘CNV SALLNIVTd VuOA GHA - ‘NFaMLaS VIGINNTOO HSILMId AO LUNOD AWAAdNS FHL NI Aysisay Joanosue A, EVOELOTS “ONExhibit D@ ® SUBP-035 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): | Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (222187); Ruben Pena (328106) FOR COURT USE OMY KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP 150 Post St., Suite 520, San Francisco, CA 94108 | TELEPHONENO: 419-YDD- 1199 FAX NO. 415-955-1158 EWAIL ADDRESS: jeff@KRInternétLaw.com: ruben@KRinternetLaw.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff Court for county in which discovery is to be conducted: San Francisco Superior Court SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco STREET ADORESS: 400 McAllister St. MAILING ADDRESS: AQ) McAllister St. OY, STATE, AND ZIP COPE: San Francisco, CA 94102 BRANCHNAME: Civic Center Courthouse Court in which action is pending: Supreme Court of British Columbia Name of Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia street aoress: 800.Smithe Street MAILING ADDRESS: 800 Smithe Street OI, STATE, AND ZIP. COPE: Vancouver, BC V6Z 2E1 counteY: Canada PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Ved Vora CALIFORNIA CASE NUMBER (if any assigned by court): DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: John Doe 1, et al. CASE NUMBER (of action pending outside Califomia): SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS IN ACTION PENDING OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA $2013643 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, if known): Twitter, Inc., c/o C T Corp. Sys., 818 W. 7th St., Suite 930, Los Angeles, CA 90017 1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE BUSINESS RECORDS described in item 3, as follows: To (name of deposition officer): Ruben Pena On (date): February 8, 2021 © At (time): 40:00 a.m. Location (address): 150 Post St., Suite 520, San Francisco, CA Do not release the requested records to the deposition officer prior to the date and time stated above. a CJ by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3, enclosed in a sealed inner wrapper with the title and number of the action, name of witness, and date of subpoena clearly written on it. The inner wrapper shall then be enclosed in an outer envelope or wrapper, sealed, and mailed to the deposition officer at the address in item 1. (7) by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3 to the deposition officer at the witness's address, on receipt of payment in cash or by check of the reasonable costs of preparing the copy, as determined under Evidence Code section 1563(b). «eC by making the original business records described in item 3 available for inspection at your business address by the attorney's representative and permitting copying at your business address under reasonable conditions during normal business hours. 2. The records are to be produced by the date and time shown in item 1 (but not sooner than 20 days after the issuance of the deposition subpoena, or 15 days after service, whichever date is later). Reasonable costs of locating records, making them available or copying them, and postage, if any, are recoverable as set forth in Evidence Code section 1563(b). The records must be accompanied by an affidavit of the custodian or other qualified witness pursuant to Evidence Code section 1561. 3. The records to be produced are described as follows (if electronically stored information is demanded, the form or forms in which each type of information is to be produced may be specified): [21 Continued on Attachment 3 (use form MC-025). 4, Attorneys of record in this action or parties without attorneys are (name, address, telephone number, and name of party represented): [1 Continued on Attachment 4 (use form MC-025). Page 4 of 2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS | ©+«' cut Frocdie 52020 100-2029 200, SUBP-035 [Rev. January 1, 2012] IN ACTION PENDING OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA Government Code, § 68097.1 " wuw.courts.ca.gov@ @ SUBP-035 ‘CASE NUMBER (of action pending outside Califomia): | PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Ved Vora DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: John Doe 1, et al. 5. If you have been served with this subpoena as a custodian of consumer or employee records under Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.6 and a motion to quash or an objection has been served on you, a court order or agreement of the parties, witnesses, and consumer or employee affected must be obtained before you are required to produce consumer or employee records. 6. [] Other terms or provisions from out-of-state subpoena, if any (specify): [1 Continued on Attachment 6 (use form MC-025). DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF $500 AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY. Date issued: January 19, 2021 Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld _- > (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON ISSUING SUBPOENA) Attorney for Plaintiff (TITLE) PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 1. | served this Subpoena for Production of Business Records In Action Pending Outside California by personally delivering a copy to the person served as follows: a. Person served (name): b. Address where served: c. Date of delivery: d. Time of delivery: e. Witness fees and mileage both ways (check one): (1) [J were paid. Amount: ........... $ (2) 1] were not paid. (3) were tendered to the witness's public entity employer as required by Government Code section 68097.2. The amount tendered was (specify): f. Fee forservice: ..........2--..0.0000e $ 2. I received this subpoena for service on (date): 3. [-) Ialso served a completed Proof of Service of Notice to Consumer or Employee and Objection (form SUBP-025) by personally delivering a copy to the person served as described in 1 above. 4. Person serving: a Not a registered California process server O b. C1 California sheriff or marshal « CJ] Registered California process server . a CO Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server e. [21 Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b) «CJ Registered professional photocopier g. [] exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451 h. Name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of (For California sheriff or marshal use only) _ California that the foregoing is true and correct. I certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: Date: . (SIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE) SUBP-O35( Rev. January 1 20%2I SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Page 2 012 IN ACTION PENDING OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA1 Vora v. John Doe 1, et al. + Case No. $2013643 Attachment 3 Records to Be Produced 1. Google LLC produce to counsel for the Plaintiff within twenty days of being served with this Order copies of documents in its possession and control containing the subscriber registration information associated with the Gmail account ved81168@gmail.com (the “Gmail Account”), as well as the IP logins for the Gmail Account, to the extent that such information or data is in the possession of and readily available to Google LLC as‘of the date of this Order. 2. The Plaintiff acknowledges that Google LLC may inform the owner of the Gmail Account of this request, in accordance with Google LLC’s usual policies. 3. Twitter, Inc. produce to counsel for the Plaintiff within twenty days of being served with this Order copies of any and all documents in its possession and control containing the subscriber. registration information associated with the Twitter account @marco87138252 (the “Twitter Account”), as well as the IP logins for the Twitter Account, to the extent that such information or data is in the possession of and readily available to Twitter. Inc. as of the date of this Order. 4, There shall be no costs of this motion for or against Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc. 5. The Plaintiff shall pay the reasonable costs incurred by Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc. in complying with this Order, if requested to do so by Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc. The above requests specifically exclude any communications, contents of a user's private mail messages, or stored content files held or maintained on behalf of a user that are protected by the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2701, et seq.Vora v. John Doe 1, et al. Alan McConchie McConchie Law Corporation 889 Harbourside Drive, Suite 290 North Vancouver, British Columbia Canada, V7P 3S1 (604) 988-1621 Counsel for Plaintiff Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld Ruben Pefia Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP 150 Post St., Suite 520 San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 955-1155 California Counsel for Plaintiff Defendant John Doe I Defendants John Does 2-10 Attachment 4 Attorneys of Record or Parties Without Attorneys Case No. $20136437“ SUPREME COURT. COLUMBIA OfaReouy BR REGISTRY JAN 15 2021 vs ENTERED No. $2013643 Vancouver Registry SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: VED VORA PLAINTIFF AND: JOHN DOE | and JOHN DOES 2-10 DEFENDANTS ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION 2 2 BEFORE } westeR Vos. } January 15, 2021 ON THE APPLICATION of the Plaintiff, filed December 23, 2020, coming on for hearing at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 15, 2021, and on hearing BY MS TEAMS: Alan: McConchie, counsel for the Plaintiff, and no one else appearing, though duly served; THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. Google LLC produce to counsel for the Plaintiff within twenty days of being served with this Order copies of documents in its possession and control containing the subscriber - registration information associated with the Gmail account ved81168@gmail.com (the “Gmail Account”), as well as the IP logins for the Gmail Account, to the extent that such information or data is in the possession of and readily available to Google LLC as of the date of this Order. 2, The Plaintiff acknowledges that Google LLC may inform the owner of the Gmail Account of this request, in accordance with Google LLC’s usual policies. 3, Twitter, Inc. produce to counsel for the Plaintiff within twenty days of being served with this Order copies of any and all documents in its possession and control containing the subscriber registration information associated with the Twitter account @marco87138252 (the “Twitter Account”), as well as the IP logins for the Twitter Account, to the extent that such information or data is in the possession of and readily available to Twitter. Inc. as of the date of this Order. 4, There shall be no costs of this motion for or against Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc.5. The Plaintiff shall pay the reasonable costs incurred by Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc. in complying with this Order, if requested to do so by Google LLC and/or Twitter, Inc. THE FOLLOWING PARTIE: ROVE THE FORM OF THIS ORDER: Signature of lawyer for the Plaintiff Alan McC ie McConchie Law Corporation By the Court. ¢ Registrar YD)REGEIVED “207 TS wnNel: JAN: 4-3 2021 C- S88 EAb weyING pue sdq sues y _diouooH uery vuny 1Z91-836-r09 ‘euoydelay ISEdLA Od ‘eAnooueA YON, SAL SpISMOGIeH 688 — 067 a uoneiodieg Me] erpouoDoyy = 3 = NOILVOUIddV WELAV SAVIN WAGUO ae z SINVCNSAaa = 01-¢ SHO NHOf pue T dod NHOL [CNV AALLNIV1d VaOA GAA ‘NEMA VISINNTOO HSILIM dO LYNOO AINAUdNS FHL NI Aysisoy JOANosue A, EPIELOTS “ON,ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name and Address}: TELEPHONE NO.. FOR COURT USE ONLY Karl Kronenberger, 226112 (415)955-1155 Ext 121 Kronenberger Rosenfeld ‘ 150 Post Street, Suite 520 San Francisco, CA 94108 Ref. No. or File No. ATTORNEY FOR (Nome): Plaintiff McConchie Vora Insert name of court, judicial district or branch court, if any: Superior Court of California, San Francisco County-San Francisco-McAllister Branch 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 PLAINTIFF: Ved Vora DEFENDANT: John Doe 1, et al. DATE: TIME: pePrio: | CASE NUMBER: PROOF OF SERVICE 02/08/2021 10:00AM $2013643 BY FAX 1. At the time of service | was a citizen of the United States; over 18 years of age and not a party to this action, and | served copies of: Subpoena for Production of Business Records i