Yuha Seo, an Instagram influencer, sought to compel Meta to turn over extensive user data about an anonymous Instagram account that allegedly harassed her through criminal sexual violations, insults, and defamation. Seo filed a criminal complaint in South Korea and was told by police that once the anonymous user's identity is determined, they will face multiple criminal charges. She requested Meta provide names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, birthdays, familial relationships, demographic and ethnic background, payment information, activity logs, comments, likes, reposts, and messages.
Judge Pitts granted the application in part under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which allows U.S. courts to authorize discovery for foreign proceedings. As Pitts wrote, 'Seo satisfies all three statutory requirements for this Court to authorize discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782' because Meta's principal office is in Menlo Park within the district, the discovery is for a pending South Korean criminal matter, and Seo is 'an interested person as the complaining criminal witness with an interest in obtaining assistance from law enforcement officers.'
The court found three of four discretionary factors favored granting the request, but trimmed its scope after determining parts were overly broad. 'Requests are unduly intrusive and burdensome where they are not narrowly tailored, request confidential information and appear to be a broad 'fishing expedition' for irrelevant information,' Pitts wrote, citing a 2016 Qualcomm case. The judge specifically criticized requests for demographic and ethnic background information, noting Seo 'fails to provide adequate justification for that requested information.'
The case was filed as a miscellaneous proceeding in April 2026 under Section 1782, which permits U.S. district courts to authorize discovery for foreign proceedings when specific requirements are met. Korean courts have generally been receptive to U.S. federal court assistance in similar cases, the judge noted, citing precedent from other Northern District of California cases involving South Korean proceedings.
Seo had argued that the broad discovery was necessary to identify the anonymous harasser, but Judge Pitts rejected the most expansive requests. The court found that while identifying information was 'clearly relevant,' other requested data 'may only tangentially assist her in identifying the user.' Additionally, Pitts noted that 'the fact that the proposed subpoena is not time-barred transforms a potentially tailored request into a broad, unbound search that potentially encompasses years of posts, relationships, and data.'
The ruling follows established precedent in the Ninth Circuit for Section 1782 applications, which the Supreme Court addressed in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices. As the court explained, parties subject to discovery authorized under Section 1782 'will be given adequate notice of any discovery taken pursuant to the request and will then have the opportunity to move to quash the discovery or to participate in it,' meaning Meta can still object to the subpoena.
Under the court's modified order, Seo may only request names, addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers associated with the accounts, plus contact information tied to payment methods. The judge emphasized that granting the ex parte application 'only authorizes discovery' and is 'without prejudice to any objections or motion to quash by Meta,' leaving the door open for the company to challenge the subpoena once served.