Aptus Health, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REQUIRING FURTHER BRIFING. Re: Dkt. No. 3 . Aptus is ordered to file a supplemental brief and supporting declaration(s) no later than 10/30/2017. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 10/23/2017. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

APTUS HEALTH, INC.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

vs.

Case No. 17-cv-05907 NC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REQUIRING FURTHER BRIEFING
Re: Dkt. No. 3

JOHN DOE 1, and JOHN DOE 2,
Defendants.

16
17

On October 13, 2017, Aptus Health, Inc. filed an ex parte motion for leave to

18

conduct expedited discovery. Dkt. No. 3. The Court reviewed the motion and finds it

19

insufficient in legal argument and facts provided.

20

First, Aptus is correct in pointing out that the standard the Court looks to in this

21

type of motion is good cause, but Aptus does not make a showing that good cause exists.

22

In evaluating whether a plaintiff establishes good cause to identify defendants through

23

expedited discovery, courts consider whether: (1) the plaintiff can identify the missing

24

party with sufficient specificity so the Court can determine the defendant is a real person

25

or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2) the plaintiff identified all previous steps

26

taken to locate the elusive defendant; (3) the plaintiff’s suit could withstand a motion to

27

dismiss; and (4) the plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of being able to identify

28

the defendant through discovery so service of process would be possible. Columbia Ins.
Case No. 17-cv-05907 NC

1

Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999)). Aptus has not satisfied

2

any of these elements in its motion.

3
4
5

Second, Aptus has not informed the Court why it believes Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
would have the information it seeks.
Thus, Aptus is ORDERED to file a supplemental brief, and supporting

6

declaration(s), demonstrating that it satisfies the Columbia Ins. Co. elements. This brief

7

must also clarify why Aptus believes Palo Alto Networks has the information sought. The

8

brief and its attachments must not exceed 15 pages combined. This brief is to be filed with

9

the Court no later than October 30, 2017.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: October 23, 2017

14

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 17-cv-05907 NC

2