AT&T Mobility LLC v. John Does

Filing 4

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Expedited Discovery.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Docia L Dalby on May 25, 2012. (SR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
AT&T MOBILITY, LLC
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION
NUMBER: 12-255-JJB-DLD

VERSUS
JOHN DOES a/k/a
[e-mail];
[e-mail];
IMTOOUPPITYFORTHISJOB@GMAIL.
COM;[e-mail];
AND XYZ CORPS.,
Defendants

ORDER
This motion is before the court on a referral from the district court of plaintiff's motion
for expedited discovery. (rec.doc. 2)
Plaintiff filed suit pursuant to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §
1030(a)(5), alleging that unknown individuals used email accounts issued via Internet
Service Provider Google, to intentionally transmit “unwanted, fraudulent, deceptive, and
illegal electronic communications regarding false emergency situations, office closures,
dress codes, safety concerns, and job performance issues to AT&T and certain of its
employees located in call centers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Jackson, Mississippi, and
Austin, Texas,” which has damaged or impaired their systems. (rec.doc. 1) Plaintiff
correctly states that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) provides that “a party may not
seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule
26(f), except . . . by court order,” and explains that it is unable to identify the defendants
without information in the possession of Google. Thus, a Rule 26(f) conference cannot be
held. A review of the jurisprudence reveals that numerous courts have routinely held that

when there is good cause shown, the court may order expedited discovery, especially in
cases where the identities of defendants are unknown to plaintiff. Here, plaintiff has shown
good cause to expedite limited discovery to ascertain the identities of the owners of the
specified email addresses, and the court therefore will grant the motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery is GRANTED.
Plaintiff may serve immediate discovery on Google to obtain the identities of the Doe
Defendants by serving a valid Rule 45 subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify
the owner(s) of the following email addresses:
[e-mail];
[e-mail];
[e-mail]; and
[e-mail]
Such information shall include the owners' names, addresses, telephone numbers,
and alternate email addresses to the extent such information is in the possession of
Google.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Google shall respond to a valid Rule 45 subpoena
within 14 days of service.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 25, 2012.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DOCIA L. DALBY

-2-