Doe 2 v. Superior Court (Avongard Products)
Annotate this CaseAvongard, d/b/a Hydraulx, filed suit against petitioner John Doe 2 for libel, alleging that Doe 2’s anonymous emails to a film producer and a film industry executive harmed its reputation. After Doe 2 filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the trial court granted Hydraulx’s request to conduct special discovery that would reveal Doe 2’s identity. Doe 2 filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking reversal of the discovery order. Under Krinsky v. Doe 6, First Amendment protection for anonymous speech requires a libel plaintiff seeking to discover an anonymous libel defendant’s identity to make a prima facie showing of all elements of defamation. Paterno v. Superior Court similarly holds that a libel plaintiff cannot establish good cause for special discovery under section 426.16, subdivision (g) without a prima facie showing the allegedly libelous statements are false and unprivileged. The court granted Doe 2's petition in this case, concluding that Hydraulx failed to make a prima facie showing that Doe 2’s emails are provably false and defamatory statements of fact or that the emails caused Hydraulx to suffer actual damage.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.