MX1 Ltd. v. DOES 1 -10

Filing 9

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 7 Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

MX1 LTD.,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No.5:17-cv-02540-HRL
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 7

DOES 1 -10,
Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiff MX1 Ltd. (MX1), an Israeli corporation, seeks leave to conduct expedited

19

discovery from Twitter, Inc. (Twitter) to ascertain the identities of Doe defendants. MX1 alleges

20

that, through a Twitter account, defendants used its mark and logo, disclosed company

21

confidential information and trade secrets, and posted misleading information about the company.

22

As MX1 acknowledges, to establish good cause for such discovery plaintiff must (among

23

other things) identify the defendants with sufficient specificity such that the court can determine

24

that they are real persons or entities who would be subject to jurisdiction in this court. Here, MX1

25

says that it believes defendants are not located in the United States. Nevertheless, citing Yahoo!,

26

Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006), plaintiff

27

contends that this court properly may exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants based on their

28

Twitter account because Twitter and its servers are located in this district. In Yahoo!, Inc., the

1

Ninth Circuit applied the so-called Calder1 effects test for personal jurisdiction, which “focuses on

2

the forum in which the defendant’s actions were felt, whether or not the actions themselves

3

occurred within the forum.” Id. at 1206. Under Ninth Circuit law, Calder “impose[s] three

4

requirements: the defendant allegedly [must] have (1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly

5

aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the

6

forum state.” Id. (citation omitted).

7

MX1 alleges that it does business in and with at least one entity in this district. (Dkt. 1

8

Complaint at ¶ 5). But, the record presented indicates that neither plaintiff nor defendants are

9

located here. Absent a better factual and legal showing for this court’s exercise of personal
jurisdiction over defendants, plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery is denied without

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

prejudice.
SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: May 31, 2017

14
15
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S. Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984).
2

1
2

5:17-cv-02540-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Andrew Nicholas Klein [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3