Facebook, Inc. v. Fisher et al
Filing
56
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF FACEBOOK'S ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY PRIOR TO RULE 26 CONFERENCE by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull granting 53 Motion Request for Leave to Conduct Discovery Prior to Rule 26 Conference (pvtlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2010)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FACEBOOK, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) JEREMI FISHER, ET AL., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Case No.: C 09-05842 JF (PVT) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF FACEBOOK'S ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY PRIOR TO RULE 26 CONFERENCE [Docket No. 53]
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, plaintiff Facebook, Inc. moves for leave to conduct discovery prior to the Rule 26 conference. ("plaintiff" or "Facebook"). Specifically, plaintiff Facebook moves to authorize issuance of a subpoena to take possession of an abandoned computer laptop previously owned by defendants Porembski and PP Web Services as well as police reports and witness statements related to the recovery of the computer laptop. Defendants had previously stipulated to injunctive relief. See, e.g., Stipulated Order and Preliminary Injunction entered on January 6, 2010 (by plaintiff and defendants Jeremi Fisher and Choko Systems LLC) (Docket No. 29); Stipulated Order and Preliminary Injunction entered on January 6, 2010 (by plaintiff and defendants Ryan Shimeall and iMedia Online Services LLC) (Docket No. 30); and Stipulated Order and Preliminary Injunction entered on January 8, 2010 (by plaintiff and defendants Philip Porembski and PP Web Services LLC) (Docket No. 33). However, defendants failed to answer, or otherwise respond to, the operative complaint and plaintiff Facebook ORDER, page 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
later obtained default against the defendants. Clerk's Notice of Entry of Default dated April 26, 2010 (as to all defendants) (Docket No. 51). In addition, defendants have not opposed, or otherwise responded to, this motion. Having reviewed the papers and considered the arguments of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Facebook's motion for leave to conduct discovery prior to the Rule 26 conference is granted. Here, plaintiff Facebook has shown good cause to conduct discovery prior to the Rule 26 conference. The need for the expedited discovery outweighs any prejudice to defendants. As an initial matter, the clerk entered default against all the defendants in the above-captioned action after they failed to answer, or otherwise respond to, the operative complaint. And the laptop computer was allegedly abandoned by defendants Porembski and PP Web Services LLC. Finally, plaintiff Facebook served this motion on all defendants and no response has been filed whatsoever. Pursuant to Rules 34 and 45, plaintiff Facebook may engage an independent third party to make a mirror image of the hard drive of the laptop computer (either on-site at the Sacramento Sheriff's Department or at the offices the independent third party) and promptly return the original laptop computer to the custody of the Sacramento Sheriff's Department. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (request to inspect or copy electronically stored information). The independent third party may then provide the mirror image of the hard drive of the laptop computer to plaintiff Facebook. Plaintiff Facebook may also conduct other third-party discovery, including issuing a subpoena for police reports and witness statements related to the recovery of the aforementioned laptop computer and conducting a deposition of the witness who located the abandoned laptop computer. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 14, 2010 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER, page 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER, page 3
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?