Stephen Elliott, a writer and film-maker who claims his life was ruined after his name appeared on the “Shitty Media Men” list that circulated online last year, is now making moves to identify the spreadsheet’s anonymous contributors. In a libel suit filed Wednesday against Moira Donegan, the crowd-sourced spreadsheet’s creator, Elliott and his attorney, Andrew Miltenberg, claimed they could legally unveil the currently unnamed “Jane Doe” defendants – and expose those who added, edited, or shared the list.

Miltenberg is a high-profile sexual assault attorney and has represented hundreds of accused men, many of them college students dealing with Title IX claims. He told the Guardian he believed this suit had important implications, especially because of how soon it comes after the Kavanaugh hearings. “I think it became very relevant – more so than ever – in light of what we as a nation watched unfold over the past weeks,” he said.

“I am very much a guy who thinks you have to stand up and be counted,” he added. “I think everything should be fair and I think this list is not fair.”

Created as a Google spreadsheet last October, the list was made to empower women to share their stories and warn others. In an essay for the Cut, Donegan said it was active online for a mere 12 hours before she took it down amid concerns that the claims could not be contained. In that time, the list traveled rapidly and dozens of names were listed next to reports of harassment, rape, assault, and other misconduct. Elliott, who says he was listed by several contributors, was accused of rape and sexual harassment. At this point, aside from Donegan, who came forward as the list’s creator in January, none of its contributors have been named.

Along with seeking $1.5m in damages for his client, Miltenberg says revealing the identities of the list’s contributors is an important part of the suit. “We may uncover that there were a lot of people who were part of this and we may uncover that it was only one or two,” he said. “But I think that everyone who takes part in something like this has to be held accountable.”

According to Daphne Keller, a director at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford’s school of law, outing those anonymous defendants might be the only way Miltenberg can get the case heard. It’s likely that Google – which was not named in the suit – and Donegan as the document’s creator will be immunized by federal statute and could get the case dismissed, Keller said.

“The other defendants are the people who actually posted the content about this individual plaintiff and they could very well be liable,” she said. “But then there is the question of whether the plaintiff can find out who they are. IP addresses can be roughly correlated to a person or a machine but not in a way that is reliable, where you know for sure who it was.”

It could be difficult for Miltenberg to get the info he is after. In a statement on Friday, Google stated unequivocally that it will not comply, writing: “We will oppose any attempt by Mr. Elliot to obtain information about this document from us.”

Even if he is able to subpoena it, as he said he plans to do, Google may well have already deleted the data. As first reported by the Daily Beast, Google’s policy page states that deleted data is removed from its servers. At most, it keeps encrypted backup storage for six months, to assist in case of accidental deletions.

Many women have rallied behind the list’s creator. ‘I want Moira to see the army she has behind her,’ says one. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz / Barcroft Images

Miltenberg says, however, that he may not need to rely on Google for the information and instead plans to consult a forensic IT professional to make the determination. “It is a big part of the suit,” he said, “and I certainly hope it’s not gone. I am confident that one way or another a good forensic IT person will be able to tell us what we need to know about where these posts and the Google Doc emanated from, who made additions to it, who sent it where, who editorialized it – where the information came from and where it went to.”

According to Don Vilfer, a former FBI agent and non-practicing attorney who heads the computer forensics division of the Vand Group, a company that specializes in obtaining and extracting data, it could be possible through forensics to confirm who accessed the deleted sheet without help from Google – but it would be hard without knowing where to start.

The documents, he explained, leave a footprint on users’ devices. But anyone investigating would need to know whose devices to check. “If you suspected certain people and you had enough to warrant getting a subpoena for those person’s devices you could find the evidence on their computers, that would show they had accessed, downloaded, and worked on the spreadsheet,” he explained.

Still, he added: “It is hard to remain anonymous in anything that people do involving the internet or data in general. It is possible that some or most of those contributors could be identified through forensic efforts, particularly in a lawsuit.”

For now, Donegan is still the only defendant who has been named, and she has yet to make a public comment. A GoFundMe created on her behalf has raised more than $94,000. The writer Lauren Hough, who created the page to support Donegan, wrote that extra proceeds will be donated to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (Rainn). “I needed to do something,” she wrote in the page’s description. I know a lot of you feel the same. More than anything, I want Moira to see the army she has behind her.”