MJ Freeway v. Doe

Filing 9

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero denying without prejudice 5 Motion for Leave to Conduct Early Discovery and granting 3 Motion to Shorten Time. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
MJ FREEWAY,

7

Case No. 18-cv-01828-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
DOE JOHN,

10

Defendant.
11

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SHORTEN TIME AND DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO CONDUCT THIRD PARTY
DISCOVERY

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 5
12
13

Plaintiff MJ Freeway LLC brings a motion for leave to conduct discovery necessary to

14

identify the John Doe Defendant named in this action (“Motion”).1 For the reasons stated below,

15

the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.

16

The Ninth Circuit has held that when the identities of defendants are not known before a

17

complaint is filed, a plaintiff “should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the

18

unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the

19

complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th

20

Cir. 1980). Courts within the Ninth Circuit apply a “good cause” standard to determine whether to

21

permit such early discovery. Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Doe-69.181.52.57, No. 16-CV-01164-

22

JSC, 2016 WL 4259116, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016). To show “good cause,” the party

23

seeking early discovery must, among other things, “identify the missing party with sufficient

24

specificity such that the Court can determine that defendant is a real person or entity who could be

25

sued in federal court” and “demonstrate[ ] that there is a reasonable likelihood of being able to

26

identify the defendant through discovery such that service of process would be possible.”

27
28

1

The Motion to Shorten Time is GRANTED.

1

OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39, No. 11-3311, 2011 WL 4715200, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7,

2

2011) (citing Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999)).

3

Plaintiff has not met these requirements. The Motion describes the type of discovery that

4

is sought but does not identify any specific discovery Plaintiff seeks to conduct. Consequently, it

5

is impossible to determine whether the discovery Plaintiff seeks to conduct is reasonably likely to

6

allow Plaintiff to identify the Doe Defendant. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request

7

without prejudice. Should Plaintiff file a renewed request for early discovery, it should

8

specifically identify the discovery it seeks and attach to the request any proposed subpoenas or

9

other discovery, which should be narrowly tailored to seek only the information necessary to
identify the Doe Defendant. It should also include information demonstrating that the particular

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

information sought is reasonably likely to lead the identification of the Doe Defendant.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2018
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2