Dhillon v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 8

AMENDED ORDER re 6 Order on Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take Limited Discovery. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 4/9/13. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

HAROLD P. SMITH, ESQ. (SBN: 126985)
[e-mail]
KRISTA L. SHOQUIST, ESQ. (SBN: 264600)
[e-mail]
DHILLON & SMITH LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Harmeet K. Dhillon

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
San Francisco Division

13
14

HARMEET K. DHILLON,

Case No. 13-01465-JCS

15
16
17

AMENDED1 [PROPOSED] ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
TO TAKE LIMITED DISCOVERY
PRIOR TO A RULE 26(f)
CONFERENCE

Plaintiff,
v.

18
19

DOE 1, an unknown individual, et al.,
Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application For Leave to Take Limited Discovery Prior to a Rule
26(f) Conference, filed April 2, 2013 (Doc. 2), sought leave to serve a subpoena on “New
Dream Network, LLC, on behalf of DreamHost.” However, the original [Proposed]
Order submitted with that ex parte application (Doc. 2-1), and the subsequent Order
filed on April 3, 2013 (Doc. 6), contained a typographical error with respect to the name
of the subpoenaed entity, listing it as “DreamHost Network, LLC, on behalf of
DreamHost.” Plaintiff thus respectfully requests that the Court remedy this error by
granting this Amended [Proposed] Order, which is identical in substance to the Court’s
Order of April 3rd, other than with respect to the name of the entity to be subpoenaed.
1

_____________________________________________________________________________
Amended [Proposed] Order

1

DHILLON & SMITH LLP

1

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take

2

Limited Discovery Prior to a Rule 26 Conference and the supporting documents

3

submitted therewith, and good cause appearing therefore, hereby grants Plaintiff’s Ex

4

Parte Application and orders as follows:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

1.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is allowed to serve immediate

discovery on New Dream Network, LLC, on behalf of DreamHost, in order to obtain
the identity of the Doe Defendants listed in Plaintiff’s Complaint by serving a Rule 45
subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify each such Defendant, including
the account information for the domain name “Mungergames.net,” hosted by
DreamHost, and the name, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of each

12

such Defendant.

13

2.

IT IS FUTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's counsel shall issue subpoena(s)

14

in substantially the same form as the example attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's Ex Parte

15

Application for Leave to Take Limited Discovery Prior to a Rule 26 Conference, with

16

each subpoena including a copy of this Order.

17

3.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that New Dream Network, LLC, will have 30

18

days from the date of service upon it to serve each entity or person whose information

19

is sought with a copy of the subpoena and a copy of this Order. New Dream Network,

20

LLC may serve the entities and persons using any reasonable means, including written

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

notice sent to the entity’s or person’s last known address, transmitted either by firstclass mail or overnight service.
4.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each entity and person and New Dream

Network, LLC, will have 30 days from the date of service upon him, her, or it to file any
motions in this court contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or modify
the subpoena). If that 30-day period lapses without the entity contesting the subpoena,

28
_____________________________________________________________________________
Amended [Proposed] Order

2

DHILLON & SMITH LLP

1

New Dream Network, LLC, shall have 10 days to produce to Plaintiff the information

2

responsive to the subpoena with respect to that entity.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

5.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because no appearance by a person at a

deposition is required by the subpoena, instead only production of documents, records
and the like is required, the witness and mileage fees required by Rule 45(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply and no such fees need be tendered.
6.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that New Dream Network, LLC, shall not

assess any charge to the Plaintiff in advance of providing the information requested in
the subpoena, and that if New Dream Network, LLC, elects to charge for the costs of
production, it shall provide a billing summary and cost reports that serve as a basis for
such billing summary and any costs claimed by such recipient.
7.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that New Dream Network, LLC, shall

14

preserve all subpoenaed information pending its delivering such information to

15

Plaintiff or the final resolution of a timely filed and granted motion to quash the

16

subpoena with respect to such information.

17

8.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any information disclosed to Plaintiff in

18

response to a subpoena may be used by Plaintiff solely for the purpose of protecting its

19

rights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq, and may not be disclosed to

20

anyone other than the parties in this action and their counsel of record pending further

23
4/9
Date: _____________, 2013

NO

25

ph C. S

pero

H

26
27

FO

LI

RT

se
Judge Jo
__________________________
Honorable Judge of the
ER
C
N
D I S T District
United StatesR I C T O F Court,
Northern District of California

A

24

RT
U
O

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T

R NIA

order of this Court.
S

22

UNIT
ED

21

28
_____________________________________________________________________________
Amended [Proposed] Order

3

DHILLON & SMITH LLP