Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee, Inc. v. Does

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying without prejudice 5 Ex Parte Application (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2012)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

Northern District of California

6
7
8

RON PAUL 2012 PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, INC.,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

10

No. C 12-0240 MEJ
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
(DKT. NO. 5)

JOHN DOES, 1-10,
12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

13
14

On January 13, 2012, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit against Defendants John Doe 1 through

15

10 for (1) false designation of origin, (2) false advertising, and (3) common law libel and

16

defamation. Dkt. No. 1. Five days later, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application seeking to take

17

expedited discovery from YouTube and Twitter so that it could learn the identities of the Doe

18

defendants. Dkt. No. 5.

19

Pursuant to FRCP 26(d)(1), courts may authorize early discovery before the FRCP 26(f)

20

conference for the parties’ convenience and in the interest of justice. Courts within the Ninth Circuit

21

generally use a “good cause” standard to determine whether to permit such discovery. See, e.g.,

22

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 768 F.Supp.2d 1040, 1042 (N.D. Cal. 2011); Semitool,

23

Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be

24

found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice,

25

outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276. In determining

26

whether there is good cause to allow expedited discovery to identify anonymous internet users

27

named as doe defendants, courts consider whether: (1) the plaintiff can identify the missing party

28

with sufficient specificity such that the court can determine that defendant is a real person or entity

1

who could be sued in federal court; (2) the plaintiff has identified all previous steps taken to locate

2

the elusive defendant; (3) the plaintiff’s suit against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss;

3

and (4) the plaintiff has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood of being able to identify

4

the defendant through discovery such that service of process would be possible. Columbia Ins. Co.

5

v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999); see also Incorp Services, Inc. v. Does

6

1-10, 2011 WL 5444789, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011).

7

Plaintiff’s ex parte application fails to address the above legal issues that this Court evaluates

8

when considering whether to grant expedited discovery. See Openmind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39,

9

2011 WL 4715200, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2011). Accordingly, the ex parte application is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff refiling another request for expedited discovery that

11

addresses the applicable legal standards and includes the proper evidentiary support.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: January 25, 2012

15

_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2