Pre-Action Discovery
The explosion of ecommerce platforms, cross-border logistics systems, and digital payment channels has given entrepreneurs unprecedented freedom to transact globally. That same digital infrastructure, however, has enabled a new class of anonymous fraudsters who exploit platform ecosystems, vanish behind temporary storefronts, and operate across borders faster than traditional investigative processes can react.
When a business victim discovers it has been defrauded, the first challenge is often not proving liability—it is simply identifying who the wrongdoer is. Unlike traditional fraud, where counterparties are known, digital commerce frequently involves pseudonymous actors, shell entities, VPNs, and drop-addresses. In this environment, the ability to pierce anonymity early, before data disappears, can be decisive.
In New York, a procedural mechanism—quietly sitting in the Civil Practice Law and Rules—has increasingly become the tool of choice to solve that problem: CPLR 3102(c) pre-action disclosure.
CPLR 3102(c)
CPLR § 3102(c) authorizes courts to order disclosure before a lawsuit is even filed, where such disclosure is “necessary to frame a complaint” or identify appropriate defendants. In essence, it lets a party gather information in advance to ensure a viable claim can be brought against the right individuals. Critically, the rule is not a fishing expedition. Petitioners must demonstrate:
A viable cause of action exists or is reasonably believed to exist
The information sought is material and necessary to pursue that action
Disclosure is otherwise unavailable without court intervention
Unlike formal criminal subpoena processes or protracted international mutual legal assistance channels, CPLR 3102(c) provides a direct civil channel to compel identifying data.
Why CPLR 3102(c) is Especially Powerful
Speed. Victims can move immediately, before data dissipates.
Precision. The mechanism targets only identity-enabling records.
Neutral balancing. Courts—not private platforms—decide when disclosure is warranted.
Jurisdictional leverage. New York’s status as a financial and commercial hub gives courts strong reach in digital commerce disputes.
Given the volatility of digital evidence and the ease with which fraudsters can vanish, these elements make 3102(c) a uniquely potent tool.
Common Use Cases in the Modern Era
Anonymous marketplace fraud
Chargeback and logistics manipulation schemes
Account takeovers and digital theft
Cryptocurrency scams tied to exchange accounts
Online defamation and harassment by pseudonymous actors
Misappropriation of data or trade secrets via digital channels
In all of these cases, victims often know the harm but not the perpetrator. 3102(c) bridges that gap.
