Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. DOE-24.7.40.252
Filing
11
ORDER re Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Early Discovery 5 by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
COBBLER NEVADA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Case No. 15-cv-05614-EDL
v.
DOE-24.7.40.252,
Defendant.
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO TAKE EARLY
DISCOVERY
Re: Dkt. No. 5
On December 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed this copyright infringement action, identifying
13
Defendant by an internet protocol (“IP”) address only. On December 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a
14
motion for leave to serve a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on Comcast
15
Cable that is “limited to the name and address of the individual/individuals associated with the IP
16
address named as defendant.”
17
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) requires a court order for discovery if it is
18
requested prior to a Rule 26(f) conference between the parties. Generally, a “good cause” standard
19
applies to determine whether to permit such early discovery. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron
20
Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be found where the need for
21
expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice of
22
the responding party.” Id. To determine whether there is “good cause” to permit expedited
23
discovery to identify doe defendants, courts consider whether:
24
25
26
27
28
(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.
1
OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1–39, 2011 WL 4715200, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011) (citing
2
Columbia Ins. Co.v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578–80 (N.D. Cal. 1999)).
3
Here, although it appears from Plaintiff’s supporting memorandum that good cause can be
4
established, Plaintiff has not filed any evidence in support of its motion, such as a declaration
5
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a verified complaint. See James v. Oakland Police Dep't, 2015
6
WL 5680919, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2015) (Illston, J.) (verified complaint signed under
7
penalty of perjury and based on personal knowledge, and not purely belief, is admissible
8
evidence); OpenMind, 2011 WL 4715200, at *2-*5 (granting a motion for early discovery of the
9
identity of a defendant identified by an IP address that was supported by a declaration from the
plaintiff’s counsel establishing that good cause existed for the motion); MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
149, 2011 WL 3607666, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2011) (same). Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered
12
to file a declaration or other evidence showing that good cause exists for its motion within one
13
week of this order.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 21, 2015
16
________________________
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?