Right. And that’s going to turn based on how published cases (aka citeable) on publication and defamation have been decided and are argued by the attorneys. It

Right. And that’s going to turn based on how published cases (aka citeable) on publication and defamation have been decided and are argued by the attorneys. It probably all hinges on the potential damage to the plaintiff, and how the subpoena would help the plaintiff pursue their case. If there’s an audit trail that can pin down who typed which line in the spreadsheet, the subpoena would likely be limited to the persons saying things that allegedly defame the plaintiff. But if not, I can see the argument that everyone who participated needs to be deposed to discover who made the statements about the plaintiff. There is some nuance to how the doc was shared (link vs. invitation vs. login required). It’s likely the discovery will be filed under seal to protect those disclosing truthful statements. It may also turn out a special master is appointed to decide who gets to see what portions of the discovery. Or the subpoena could be quashed.