FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Musicki v Google LLC [2021] FCA 1393
File number: VID 480 of 2021 Judgment of: MORTIMER J Date of judgment: 5 November 2021 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for preliminary discovery pursuant to r 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – allegedly defamatory comments made online – respondent did not appear – application granted Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Cases cited: Division: General Division Registry: Victoria National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction Number of paragraphs: 13 Date of hearing: 5 November 2021 Solicitor for the Prospective Applicant: Matrix Legal ORDERS
VID 480 of 2021 BETWEEN: KORANA MUSICKI
Prospective Applicant
AND: GOOGLE LLC
Prospective Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
MORTIMER J
DATE OF ORDER:
5 NOVEMBER 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Google LLC give discovery to the Prospective Applicant of all documents that are or have been in Google LLC’s possession, power or control relating to the description of the prospective respondent, namely:
pseudonym: Dave Cross and user ID:
link to review:
to rr 10.42 and 10.43 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) the Prospective Applicant shall serve this order, and the Court’s reasons for judgment once published, upon Google LLC in the United States of America, in accordance with Article 10(a) of the “Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters” done at The Hague on 15 November 1965, by sending it by international registered post, with an acknowledgement of receipt to be provided to the Prospective Applicant, to the Respondent’s address for service at:
Google LLC
c/o Custodian of Records
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California 94043
United States of Americaand by sending it by email to Google LLC at google-legal-support@google.com and internationalcivil@google.com
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered Ex Tempore and Revised)MORTIMER J:
The applicant, Dr Korana Musicki, has applied, by an originating application, dated 25 August 2021, for orders requiring Google LLC to provide preliminary discovery, pursuant to rule 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), of all documents or things in its possession or control relating to the description of an unknown person to be the prospective respondent, who posted, allegedly, defamatory comments about her.
No notice of address for service for Google has been filed with the Court and no legal representative for Google sought to appear at the hearing. An affidavit of service has been filed. It was read on the application. In that affidavit, Mr Stanarevic, the applicant’s solicitor, deposes that, pursuant to orders made by the Court on 13 September 2021, he posted to Google LLC on 27 September 2021, by international registered post, the following documents: a copy of the Court’s orders, the originating application and his affidavit, both filed on 25 August 2021. He deposes that he also emailed the…
Continue reading Musicki v Google LLC
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Musicki v Google LLC [2021] FCA 1393
- Case
- [2021] FCA 1393
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to the discovery of documents pursuant to rule 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The court needed to determine whether the application met the criteria for such discovery, particularly considering the defendant's failure to appear. The court also had to decide on the appropriate method for serving the order on Google LLC, given its international presence.
In granting the application, the court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently demonstrated the need for the discovery to pursue their defamation claim. The absence of the defendant did not preclude the granting of the order, as the court could proceed on the assumption that the defendant would not contest the application. The court ruled that the order should be served on Google LLC in the United States, in compliance with the Hague Service Convention, by sending it by international registered post and by email to specified addresses.
The court's final order mandated that Google LLC provide the plaintiff with all documents related to the pseudonym Dave Cross and the specified Google Maps review. Additionally, the order detailed the method of serving the court's decision on Google LLC, ensuring compliance with international service protocols.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Google LLC give discovery to the Prospective Applicant of all documents that are or have been in Google LLC’s possession, power or control relating to the description of the prospective respondent, namely:
pseudonym: Dave Cross and user ID:
https://www.google.com/maps/contrib/102570466144590922307
URL link to review:
https://www.google.com/maps/contrib/102570466144590922307/reviews/@-37.8445923,144.9793406,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m3!8m2!3m1!1e1?hl=en-AU
2. Pursuant to rr 10.42 and 10.43 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) the Prospective Applicant shall serve this order, and the Court’s reasons for judgment once published, upon Google LLC in the United States of America, in accordance with Article 10(a) of the “Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters” done at The Hague on 15 November 1965, by sending it by international registered post, with an acknowledgement of receipt to be provided to the Prospective Applicant, to the Respondent’s address for service at:
Google LLC
c/o Custodian of Records
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California 94043
United States of America
and by sending it by email to Google LLC at google-legal-support@google.com and internationalcivil@google.com
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.