Assef et al v. Does 1-10

Filing 9

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James Granting in Part and Denying in Part 8 Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take Immediate Discovery. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NICHOLAS ASSEF, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-01960-MEJ

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER GRANTING IN PART EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
TO TAKE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY

v.
9
10

DOES 1-10,

Re: Dkt. No. 8
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
INTRODUCTION

13
14

In this trademark infringement case, Plaintiffs Nicholas Assef and Lincoln Crowne &

15

Company Pty Ltd (“Plaintiffs”) allege that unknown persons (“Defendants”) created an infringing

16

blog hosted by Google Inc.’s “Blogger” service. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte

17

Application for Leave to Take Immediate Discovery, in which Plaintiffs seek leave to serve a

18

subpoena on Google to learn Defendants’ identities. Dkt. No. 8. Having considered Plaintiffs’

19

position and the relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Application for

20

the reasons below.

21

BACKGROUND

22

Lincoln Crowne is an Australian investment bank that provides advice on corporate

23

transactions and strategic engagements. Compl. ¶¶ 6-7, Dkt. No. 1. Assef is the founder and

24

executive director of Lincoln Crowne. Id. ¶¶ 7, 9. Lincoln Crowne owns the following

25

trademarks: Lincoln Crowne & Company (USPTO Reg. No. 4107955); Lincoln Crowne &

26

Company (Australian Reg. No. 1423961); Lincoln Crowne (Australian Reg. No. 1423960);

27

lincolncrowne (Australian Reg. No. 142175). Id. ¶ 7. Lincoln Crowne also owns and operates a

28

website located at lincolncrowne.com. Id. ¶ 8.

1

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants created an infringing and defamatory blog located at

2

www.lincolncrowne.blogspot.com (“the Blog”). Id. ¶ 11; Ex. A. The Blog bears the heading,

3

“Beware Lincoln Crowne & Company” and the subheading “Warning Warning Warning – Nick

4

Assef.” Id. ¶ 12. The text of the Blog includes personal attacks on Assef, as well as attacks on

5

Lincoln Crowne. Id. Defendants used Plaintiffs’ “Lincoln Crowne” trademark as their Blogger

6

username, and thus “LINCOLNCROWNE” appears both in the Blog’s URL and on the Blog itself

7

under the heading “About Me.” Id. Defendants had no authorization to use the Lincoln Crowne

8

trademarks. Id. Defendants have no affiliation with Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 13. Rather, Plaintiffs believe

9

that Defendants are individuals who were upset about the performance of a private investment and

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

posted false statements on the Blog in retaliation. Id.
On January 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a defamation lawsuit against Google in the Supreme

12

Court of New South Wales, Australia. Id. ¶ 15. In response to the Australian lawsuit, on or about

13

January 18, 2014, Google removed the Blog across its Blogger domains. Id. However, in or

14

around September 2014, Plaintiffs discovered that Google had reinstated the Blog in the .com

15

domain. Id. ¶ 16. Thus, although the Blog is no longer available at the Australia-specific URL

16

www.lincolncrowne.blogspot.com/au, it is viewable at the primary URL

17

www.lincolncrowne.blogspot.com. Id. Despite the Australian litigation, Plaintiffs state that

18

Google refuses to take down the Blog without an order from a United States court. Id. ¶ 17.

19

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on April 30, 2015 to seek redress for Defendants’ alleged

20

infringement. Because Defendants’ identities are unknown, Plaintiffs have not been able to

21

attempt service and have not yet taken any further action in this litigation. Evitt Decl. ¶ 4, Dkt.

22

No. 8-1. On May 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the present Application, seeking discovery to

23

determine information about the individuals who created the Blog. Namely, Plaintiffs seek to

24

obtain from Google:

25



Documents sufficient to identify the names, addresses, telephone
numbers, and email addresses of the individuals and/or entities
who created, own and operate the Blog;



Documents sufficient to identify the IP [Internet Protocol]
addresses used to create, operate and access the Blog; and

26
27
28

2

1



Documents relating to the individuals and/or entities who
created, own and operate the Blog.

2

App. at 5. Plaintiffs maintain that this information will allow them either to amend their

3

Complaint to name the Defendants, or to determine what additional subpoenas will be necessary to

4

determine Defendants’ identities. Id.
LEGAL STANDARD

5
6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 26(d) provides, in part, that “[a] party may not

7

seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except

8

. . . when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). A

9

court may order expedited discovery under Rule 26(d) for good cause, which may be found
“where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Elec. Am., Inc., 208

12

F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Good cause “is frequently found in cases involving claims of

13

infringement and unfair competition.” Id. The court must perform this evaluation in light of “the

14

entirety of the record to date and the reasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding

15

circumstances.” Id. at 275 (citation & quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original).

16

Rule 45 governs discovery of non-parties by subpoena.
DISCUSSION

17
18

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the use of “Doe” to identify a defendant is not

19

favored. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). But it is appropriate “where the

20

identity of alleged defendants will not be known prior to the filing of a complaint.” Id. Here,

21

because Defendants anonymously operate the Blog, Plaintiffs have been unable to determine their

22

true identities. Evitt Decl. ¶ 3. “In such circumstances, the plaintiff should be given an

23

opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery

24

would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.”

25

Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642.

26

As noted above, Plaintiffs seek to obtain three categories of information. As to

27

Defendants’ contact information, it does not appear that Plaintiffs have any other way to obtain

28

this most basic information, which is necessary to advance the lawsuit by enabling Plaintiffs to
3

1

effect service of process. Evitt Decl. ¶ 3. “Postponing disclosure of information until the normal

2

course of discovery is not an option in the instant case because, without disclosure of Defendants’

3

names and contact information, the litigation cannot proceed to that stage.” UMG Recordings,

4

2006 WL 1343597 at *1 (citing Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276). Thus, good cause exists for

5

discovery of Defendants’ names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses.
As to IP addresses, expedited discovery is appropriate because the addresses can assist in

6
7

the identification of Doe defendants. See Dhillon v. Does 1-10, 2013 WL 5367783, at *2 (N.D.

8

Cal. Sep. 25, 2013) (permitting plaintiff to serve subpoena on Google to obtain identity of Doe

9

defendants, including IP addresses used to create and maintain accounts); Big Ticket Television,
Inc. v. Zaragosa, 2013 WL 3833075, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2013) (permitting immediate

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

discovery, including IP addresses, from Google to “enable Plaintiffs to ascertain the identities of

12

the Defendants or to effectuate service upon them.”); Bloomberg, L.P. v. John Does 1-4, 2013 WL

13

4780036, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2013) (denying motion for reconsideration in trademark

14

infringement case where the court had previously permitted plaintiffs leave to serve Google with a

15

Rule 45 subpoena seeking information, including IP addresses, to identify Doe defendants). Thus,

16

good cause exists to permit discovery of the IP addresses used to create, operate, and access the

17

Blog.

18

As to the third category, “[d]ocuments relating to the individuals and/or entities who

19

created, own and operate the Blog,” the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish good

20

cause for such broad discovery at this early stage in the proceedings. If Plaintiffs obtain

21

Defendants’ contact information, it is not clear why all documents “relating to” Defendants would

22

also be necessary to effect service of process. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have

23

shown a need for expedited discovery of Defendants’ names, addresses, telephone numbers, and

24

email addresses, as well as the IP address used to create the Blog, but not other documents

25

“relating to” Defendants.

26

The Court also finds that Plaintiffs’ infringement claims are likely to survive a motion to

27

dismiss. Trademark infringement requires Plaintiffs to show that Defendants used (1) a

28

reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of their registered trademark; (2) without
4

1

Plaintiffs’ consent; (3) in commerce; (4) in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution

2

or advertising of any goods; (5) where such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause a mistake

3

or to deceive. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a); Brookfield Commc’n v. W. Coast Entm’t, 174 F.3d 1036,

4

1046-47 (9th Cir. 1999). In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they own all right, title, and

5

interest in the Lincoln Crowne Trademarks and www.lincolncrowne.com website. Compl. ¶ 21.

6

They further allege that Defendants created the Blog, which has a username and URL that are

7

identical or confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ trademarks, without Plaintiff’s authorization, and that

8

Defendants’ unauthorized use of the trademarks is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception

9

as to its association with Plaintiffs. Id. ¶¶ 22-23. Thus, Plaintiffs plead all necessary elements of a
trademark cause of action, and they have shown good cause exists for the need to issue a Rule 45

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

subpoena. See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 4104214, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2008)

12

(“In Internet infringement cases, courts routinely find good cause exists to issue a Rule 45

13

subpoena to discover a Doe defendant’s identity, prior to a Rule 26(f) conference, where a plaintiff

14

makes a prima facie showing of infringement [and] and there is no other way to identify the Doe

15

defendant….”); Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 579-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999)

16

(authorizing plaintiff to conduct pre-service discovery to ascertain the identities of Doe defendants

17

accused of committing trademark infringement over the Internet).

18

Balancing this need against “the prejudice to the responding party,” Semitool, 208 F.R.D.

19

at 276, the Court finds the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of

20

justice, outweighs the prejudice to Google. Looking first at “the administration of justice,”

21

without expedited discovery, Plaintiffs cannot identify Defendants, which means this matter

22

cannot proceed forward, and Plaintiffs will continue to suffer ongoing, continuous injury due to

23

Defendants’ illegal activities. As to the prejudice to Google, there is none, as the Rule 45

24

subpoena will only identify Defendants’ contact information in order to advise them of suit, and

25

possibly resolve this matter without additional litigation. Further, as stated in the Conclusion

26

below, protective measures shall be implemented to avoid undue prejudice to Defendants and

27

protect their privacy.

28
5

CONCLUSION

1
2
3
4

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave
to Take Immediate Discovery, as modified herein. Specifically,
1.

Plaintiffs may serve a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on

5

Google to obtain the Defendants’ names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email

6

addresses, as well as documents sufficient to identify the IP addresses used to

7

create, operate, and access the Blog (the “Identifying Information”). Plaintiffs must

8

serve on Google a copy of this Order attached to the subpoena.

9

2.

Google shall have 21 days from service of the subpoena to serve Defendants with a
copy of the subpoena and this Order. Google may serve Defendants using any

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

reasonable means, including written notice sent to the last known address,

12

transmitted either by first-class mail or via overnight service.

13

3.

Google and Defendants shall each have 21 days from the date of service upon him,

14

her, or it to file any motions in this Court contesting the subpoena (including a

15

motion to quash or modify the subpoena). If neither Google nor Defendants moves

16

or objects within these time periods, Google shall have 7 days to serve the

17

Identifying Information on Plaintiffs.

18

4.

shall preserve the Identifying Information pending resolution of such motions.

19
20
21
22

If any motions are brought to quash or otherwise object to the subpoena, Google

5.

Any information disclosed to Plaintiffs in response to the subpoena may be used
solely for the purpose of protecting their rights as set forth in the Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25
26

Dated: May 28, 2015
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
6