Skout, Inc v. Jen Processing, Ltd et al
Filing
22
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 19 Motion for Discovery (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
SKOUT, INC,
Case No. 14-cv-02341-JSC
Plaintiff,
10
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
RENEWED MOTION FOR EARLY
DISCOVERY
v.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
JEN PROCESSING, LTD, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 19
Defendants.
13
14
15
Plaintiff Skout, Inc. (“Skout”), a California corporation which provides a free location-
16
based platform for chatting with people online, alleges that Defendants are spammers who create
17
fake Skout profiles to lure Skout users to websites owned by Defendants or their affiliates.
18
Plaintiff sues for breach of contract, fraud, and violation of Business and Professions Code Section
19
17200. Plaintiff has attempted unsuccessfully to serve the named Defendants all of which are
20
foreign corporations. Having been unable to serve the named Defendants thus far, Plaintiff seeks
21
leave to conduct early discovery to identify Does 1-4 by serving subpoenas on non-party proxy
22
registration services. After carefully considering the arguments and briefing submitted, the Court
23
concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the renewed
24
motion for early discovery. (Dkt. No. 19.)
25
BACKGROUND
26
Skout is a free location-based web platform that allows registered users to meet and chat
27
with other users. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 18.) Skout users send messages to each other through the Skout
28
platform. (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are spammers who have created fake Skout
1
profiles, which they use to send fraudulent links to lure Skout’s users onto their own websites, for
2
their own commercial gain. (Id. ¶ 1.) In particular, Defendants are alleged to use bots or other
3
automated techniques to direct Skout users to pornographic websites owned by Defendants or their
4
business affiliates. (Id. ¶ 32.)
5
Defendants’ spamming activity has negatively affected Skout users’ experience, damaged
6
the users’ good will towards Skout, and caused some Skout users to terminate their accounts. (Id.
7
¶ 25.) Skout has also lost prospective business relationships, and been forced to spend substantial
8
amounts of money, time, and other resources, to combat the spam. (Id. ¶ 25.)
9
The named defendants—Jen Processing, LTD, Infium, LTD, CityNet Line, V.A.N.
Kereskedelmi es Szolgaltato Beteti Tarsasag, and Epiohost LTD—are all foreign corporations
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
doing business in California. (Id. ¶¶ 3-7.) Plaintiff has been unable to find valid physical
12
addresses for any of these Defendants other than Defendant Jen Processing, LTD. (Dkt. No. 14 at
13
3.) Plaintiff is attempting to serve Defendant Jen Processing, LTD, a United Kingdom
14
corporation, in accordance with the Hague Convention, but no appearance has yet been made on
15
its behalf. (Dkt. No. 19-1 ¶ 2.)
16
Plaintiff alleges that Does 1-4 are companies or businesses doing business in the state of
17
California who own and operate specified domain names (websites) used by the spammers. (Dkt.
18
No. 1 ¶¶ 8-11.) However, Plaintiff alleges that Does 1-4 use proxy registration services to conceal
19
their identities by having the proxy registration services replace the website owner’s information
20
in the public Whois directory with the proxy registration service’s own information. (Dkt. No. 14
21
at 3:16-23.) Plaintiff contends that through a search of the publicly available Whois directory it
22
discovered the following information regarding the proxy registration services used by Does 1-4.
23
(Dkt. No. 14-1 ¶ 4.) Doe 1 owns and operates the domain xxxblackbook.com which uses Contact
24
Privacy Inc. as its proxy registration service. (Id.) Doe 2 owns and operates the domain
25
paydirtdollars.com and uses Domains By Proxy, LLC as its proxy registration service. (Id.) Doe
26
3 owns and operates the domains mywebcamcrush.com, webcamflushcrush.com,
27
camflushcrush.com, blamcams.com, flirtyinvitations.com, sunnydollars.net,
28
disrespectmybody.com, cambayHD.com, and nervoustv.com and uses Moniker Privacy Services
2
1
as its proxy registration service. (Id.) Doe 4 owns and operates the domain cam555.com using
2
Whoisguard Protected as its proxy registration service. (Id.)
3
Plaintiff seeks leave to propound subpoenas pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45
4
on the non-party proxy registration services to discover the identities of Does 1-4. (Dkt. No. 19-2.)
5
The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct early discovery to serve these
6
subpoenas without prejudice to Plaintiff first attempting to obtain the information from the proxy
7
registration services voluntarily. (Dkt. No. 15.) Plaintiff’s attempted to do so; however, the proxy
8
registration services for Doe 2 and Doe 4, Domains By Proxy, LLC and Whoisguard Protected ,
9
respectively, have public policies prohibiting the release of information about the owners of their
domain sites in connection with a civil lawsuit without a subpoena. (Dkt. No. 19-1 ¶¶ 6-7.)
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Plaintiff’s efforts to contact the proxy registration services, Contact Privacy and Moniker Privacy
12
Services, for Doe 1 and Doe 3, respectively, were likewise unsuccessful. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-9.) Plaintiff
13
thereafter filed the now pending renewed motion for early discovery.
14
LEGAL STANDARD
15
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) requires a court order for discovery if it is
16
requested prior to a Rule 26(f) conference between the parties. Generally, a “good cause” standard
17
applies to determine whether to permit such early discovery. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am.,
18
Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D.Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be found where the need for
19
expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice of
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
the responding party.” Id.
To determine whether there is “good cause” to permit expedited discovery to identify doe
defendants, courts consider whether:
(1) the plaintiff can identify the missing party with sufficient specificity such that
the Court can determine that defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued
in federal court; (2) the plaintiff has identified all previous steps taken to locate the
elusive defendant; (3) the plaintiff’s suit against defendant could withstand a
motion to dismiss; and (4) the plaintiff has demonstrated that there is a reasonable
likelihood of being able to identify the defendant through discovery such that
service of process would be possible.
OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1–39, No. 11–3311, 2011 WL 4715200, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct.7,
28
3
1
2011) (citing Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578–80 (N.D.Cal.1999)).
DISCUSSION
2
3
A. Plaintiff Identified the Missing Parties with Sufficient Specificity
4
Under the first factor, “the Court must examine whether the Plaintiff has identified the
5
Defendants with sufficient specificity, demonstrating that each Defendant is a real person or entity
6
who would be subjected to jurisdiction in this Court.” Pac. Centur y Int’l, Ltd. v. Does 1—48, No.
7
11–3823, 2011 WL 4725243, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011). The Court finds that it has.
8
9
First, Plaintiff has sufficiently established that Doe Defendants 1 through 4 are real persons
or entities. Plaintiff contends that these Doe Defendants have either directly spammed Skout’s
users or have acted in concert with other defendants who have directly spammed Skout’s users, in
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
order to drive traffic to their websites for their own commercial gain. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 31.)
12
Second, with respect to the jurisdiction question, the Court applies a three-part test to
13
determine whether a party has sufficient minimum contacts to be susceptible to specific personal
14
jurisdiction: (1) the non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities into the form or
15
purposefully avail himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum; (2) the claim must
16
arise out of or relate to forum related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport
17
with fair play and substantial justice. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797,
18
802 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, Plaintiff represents that the Doe Defendants intentionally spammed
19
Skout which is a California company, and its users—many of whom are California residents—
20
thus, causing foreseeable harm in California. This is sufficient to show that the Doe Defendants
21
may be amenable to suit in federal court. See Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et
22
L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (holding that under the purposeful
23
direction test “the defendant allegedly must have (1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly
24
aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the
25
forum state.”)
26
B. Previous Steps Taken to Identify the Doe Defendants
27
Under the second factor, the party should identify all previous steps taken to locate the
28
elusive defendant. Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579. “This element is aimed at ensuring that
4
1
plaintiffs make a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of service of process and
2
specifically identifying defendants.” Id. In Columbia, Plaintiff sought leave to conduct early
3
discovery to likewise discover the identity of the owners or operators of certain domain names. Id.
4
The court found that Plaintiff had made a sufficient good faith effort to identify the unknown
5
defendant where plaintiff’s counsel called the phone numbers listed in the Whois directory and
6
sent email and hardcopies of the pending motions to the contact information listed on Whois. Id.
7
The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s motion for early discovery without prejudice
because the record did not demonstrate that Plaintiff had attempted to contact the proxy
9
registration services prior to filing the motion to inquiry as to whether they would voluntarily
10
provide information regarding the identity of the owners or operators of the domain names at
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
issue. Plaintiff thereafter emailed and/or called the four proxy registration services at issue and
12
was unable to obtain any information regarding the domain names. (Dkt. No. 19-1 ¶¶ 5-9.)
13
Plaintiff has thus made a sufficient showing that it attempted to identify the Doe Defendants prior
14
to requesting early discovery.
15
C. Withstanding a Motion to Dismiss
16
Under the third requirement, a plaintiff should establish to the court’s satisfaction that
17
plaintiff’s suit against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss. Columbia Ins. Co., 185
18
F.R.D. at 579. “A conclusory pleading will never be sufficient to satisfy this element.” Id. Thus,
19
plaintiff must make some showing that “an act giving rise to civil liability actually occurred and
20
that the discovery is aimed at revealing specific identifying features of the person or entity who
21
committed that act.” Id. at 580.
22
Here, Plaintiff alleges state law claims for breach of contract, fraud, and violation of
23
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. The elements of a breach of contract
24
claim under California law are: (1) the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for
25
nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff. Reichert v.
26
Gen. Ins. Co. of Am., 68 Cal.2d 822, 830 (1968). Plaintiff alleges that all Skout users are parties to
27
Skout’s Terms which constitute a valid and enforceable contract through which the Doe
28
Defendants—as Skout users—obtained a limited license to use Skout’s services. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶
5
1
38.) Plaintiff further alleges that it performed all its obligations under the Terms except those
2
excused by the Defendants’ action. (Id. at ¶ 39.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
3
have breached the contract by 1) using Skout for commercial purposes; 2) interfering with or
4
disrupting Skout’s services; 3) using Skout’s services in a manner that violates local, state,
5
national or international law; 4) using Skout’s services to harm minors; 5) using Skout’s services
6
to reveal personal information about Skout users; 6) defrauding or misleading Skout and its users;
7
7) impersonating a person or entity and falsely stating or otherwise misrepresenting their
8
affiliation with a person or entity; 8) creating an account by automated means and false pretenses;
9
9) using other users’ accounts; 10) failing to comply with local rules; and 11) failing to comply
with applicable laws regarding the transmission of technical data exported from the United States
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
or the countries in which Defendants reside. This is a sufficient showing that Plaintiff’s breach of
12
contract claim would withstand a motion to dismiss which is sufficient for purposes of this factor.
13
See New Sensations, Inc. v. Does 1-426, No. 12-3800, 2012 WL 4675281, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1,
14
2012); Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Does 1–62, No. 11–575, 2011 WL 1869923, at *4 (S.D.
15
Cal. May 12, 2011).
16
Another issue frequently addressed by courts in these types of cases is whether the Doe
17
Defendants are properly joined. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits joinder of defendants
18
in a single action if a right to relief is asserted against them “arising out of the same transaction,
19
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and a “question of law or fact common to all
20
defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (A)(B). “[T]he impulse is toward
21
entertaining the broadest possible scope of the action consistent with fairness to the parties;
22
joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged.” United Mine Workers of America
23
v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966); see also League to Save Lake Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency,
24
558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir.1997) (stating that the “primary purpose” of Rule 20 “is to promote
25
trial convenience and to prevent multiple lawsuits”). Plaintiff alleges that its causes of action
26
against the Doe Defendants arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences; that is, that
27
in the year prior to filing the Complaint, the Doe Defendants acted in concert with each other
28
and/or other Defendants in order to spam Skout’s users for their own commercial purposes and
6
1
financial gain. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 21, 31.) Thus, Plaintiff contends that there will be numerous
2
common questions of law and fact. The Court agrees.
3
D. Likelihood of Identifying the Doe Defendant Through Discovery
4
The final factor concerns whether the discovery sought will uncover the identities of the
Doe Defendants. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 639, 642–43 (9th Cir. 1980) (stating that
6
early discovery to identify doe defendants should be allowed “unless it is clear that discovery
7
would not uncover the identities”); Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir.1999)
8
(holding that “the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the
9
unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities”). Here, the
10
Doe Defendants appear to be using proxy registration services to mask their true identity and these
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
proxy registration services are unwilling to provide information regarding the Doe Defendants’
12
identities absent a subpoena. (Dkt. No. 19-1 ¶¶ 6-9.) Plaintiff has thus demonstrated that a
13
subpoena on these proxy registration services should reveal the identities of the individuals or
14
entities behind the domain names at issue.
CONCLUSION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for early discovery is GRANTED. (Dkt.
No. 19.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 15, 2015
______________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?