Duffy v Google LLC

Dr Janice Duffy filed an interlocutory application for further discovery against Google LLC, seeking various categories of documents. The Supreme Court of South Australia dismissed the application, and Dr Duffy now appeals the dismissal. Dr Duffy’s defamation claim against Google alleges that it published defamatory material about her through search results on its domains. She claims that she notified Google of the allegedly defamatory material in May 2014. The discovery sought includes Google's data on search terms related to Dr Duffy, internal documents, communications, and policies regarding content removal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Master's dismissal of the discovery application was in error and whether the decision caused any injustice. Dr Duffy argued that the Master's decision was erroneous because it relied on the notion of defective pleadings, which Google had not raised previously. Google contended that the interlocutory decision by Justice Blue in 2019 did not prevent them from arguing defective pleadings in response to the discovery application. The court found that the interlocutory decision did not bar Google from relying on defective pleadings, as discovery obligations depend on the current state of the pleadings.

The court concluded that there was no sufficient doubt about the primary decision to warrant reconsideration and that Dr Duffy would not incur substantial injustice if the decision stood. The court emphasized that the interlocutory decision by Justice Blue did not preclude Google from arguing defective pleadings in response to the discovery application. The discovery obligations are determined based on the present state of the pleadings. Given these considerations, the court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal.