The ruling allows plaintiff Henry Bradley to proceed with depositions of employees at Romantix Online, Inc., an adult entertainment website, and NextRoll, Inc., a digital marketing company, in a class action alleging privacy violations. Bradley and originally co-plaintiff Paul Perez sued the companies along with Google and Innov8 Solutions in March 2025, claiming a series of unspecified privacy breaches involving online tracking and data collection.
Judge Wise rejected the defendants' core argument that Bradley was seeking improper expedited discovery, finding they had fundamentally mischaracterized the procedural posture. 'This argument is illogical and misleading,' Wise wrote. 'Where, as here, the parties have conducted a Rule 26(f) conference, it follows that discovery is open.' The judge noted that discovery automatically begins after parties complete their required meet-and-confer conference under federal civil procedure rules.
The court delivered its sharpest criticism when addressing the defendants' failure to meet their legal burden. As Judge Wise explained, parties seeking to avoid depositions must make 'a strong showing' of specific harm, but 'neither Romantix nor NextRoll have met this burden or even attempted to do so.' Instead, the defendants incorrectly tried to shift the burden to the plaintiff to justify what they characterized as expedited discovery.
The case has followed divergent procedural paths for different defendants. Google and Innov8 filed motions to dismiss both the original complaint and an amended version, with Google successfully obtaining a discovery stay in February that applied only to those two companies. By contrast, Romantix and NextRoll chose to file answers rather than challenge the pleadings, with Romantix meeting its deadline but NextRoll filing its response more than a month late.
The defendants argued that Bradley's deposition notices constituted requests for expedited discovery that required special justification, but Judge Wise found this characterization fundamentally flawed. The court emphasized that Rule 26(d)(1) 'expressly permits discovery to begin after [the parties] have conducted their Rule 26(f) conference,' citing multiple precedents where courts found expedited discovery motions moot once normal discovery had opened.
Judge Wise also issued pointed procedural criticisms, admonishing NextRoll for its late answer filing and noting that 'future filings that do not comply with Court deadlines may result in sanctions.' The judge expressed particular puzzlement that NextRoll had 'verbatim reproduction' of Romantix's motion language instead of simply joining the earlier filing, warning that the court 'will not countenance future filings that copy another party's work without attribution.'
The ruling clears the way for Bradley to depose witnesses from the two companies while Google and Innov8 remain protected by their separate discovery stay pending resolution of their motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The decision reinforces that defendants cannot avoid routine discovery simply by characterizing it as expedited without demonstrating actual prejudice or harm.