GP International LLC v. RoidStudio et al
Filing
6
Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu Granting in Part 5 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take Early Discovery.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
GP INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
12
13
Plaintiff,
v.
14
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE
EARLY DISCOVERY
ROIDSTUDIO, ET AL,
15
No. C-11-04690 DMR
Defendants.
___________________________________/
16
17
Plaintiff GP International, LLC has filed an ex parte application for leave to take immediate
18
discovery prior to the Rule 26 conference. [Docket No. 5.] Having considered Plaintiff’s papers
19
and accompanying submissions, the court hereby GRANTS the administrative request in part on the
20
grounds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to take early discovery. See Semitool, Inc. v.
21
Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Specifically, Plaintiff has shown
22
that limited discovery of basic identifying information is necessary to permit Plaintiff to effect
23
service on Defendants Roidstudio and Northdroid. See Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185
24
F.R.D. 573, 577-580 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (identifying safeguards to ensure that a plaintiff is not seeking
25
early discovery to harass or intimidate defendants).
26
However, at this time, Plaintiff is only granted leave to serve Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
27
45 subpoenas on third party providers Google, Inc. (“Google”) and Amazon.com and/or Amazon
28
Digital Services, Inc. (“Amazon”). If Plaintiff is unable to serve Defendants after reviewing the
1
records produced by Google and Amazon in response to its subpoenas, Plaintiff shall file a new
2
request to take early discovery setting forth good cause to support its request to serve Rule 45
3
subpoenas on any financial institutions identified in the records produced by Google and/or
4
Amazon.
5
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff is allowed to serve immediate discovery
6
on Google and Amazon by serving Rule 45 subpoenas as follows. Plaintiff’s subpoenas to Google
7
and Amazon may only request the following information: Defendants’ true names, addresses,
8
telephone numbers, and the identity of any financial institutions associated with Defendants. The
9
subpoenas shall include a copy of this Order.
It is further ORDERED that Google and Amazon will have 30 days from the date of service
11
upon them to serve Defendants with a copy of the subpoena and a copy of this Order. Google and
12
Amazon may serve Defendants using any reasonable means, including written notice sent to
13
Defendants’ last known address(es), transmitted either by first-class mail or via overnight service.
14
Google, Amazon and Defendants each shall have 30 days from the date of service to file any
15
motions in this court contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or modify the subpoena).
16
If that 30-day period lapses without Google, Amazon or Defendants contesting the subpoena,
17
Google and Amazon shall have 10 days to produce to Plaintiff the information responsive to the
18
subpoena.
19
It is further ORDERED that Google and Amazon shall preserve all subpoenaed information
20
pending their delivering such information to Plaintiff or the final resolution of a timely filed and
21
granted motion to quash the subpoena with respect to such information.
subpoena solely to protect its rights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
Dated: November 16, 2011
27
OO
IT IS S
D
RDERE
NO
DONNA M. RYU nna M. Ryu
o
United StatesdMagistrate Judge
Ju ge D
RT
28
H
ER
2
R NIA
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FO
25
ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T
RT
U
O
S
24
LI
23
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff may use any information disclosed in response to a
A
22
UNIT
ED
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
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?