Bizapedia, LLC v. DOES 1-11
Filing
14
ORDER Granting 9 EX PARTE MOTION for Leave to Conduct Early Discovery in accordance with the provisions of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 3/17/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9
10
11
12
BIZAPEDIA, LLC,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DOES 1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:14-cv-00220-APG-GWF
ORDER
13
14
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Bizapedia, LLC’s Ex Parte Motion for Leave to
15
Conduct Early Discovery (#9), filed on February 28, 2014. The Court conducted a hearing in this
16
matter on March 17, 2014.
17
18
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Plaintiff Bizapedia, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company that owns and operates a
19
website known as “Bizapedia.” Bizapedia states that it extracts information from public business
20
record filings, centralizes the information in a searchable database and makes the information
21
available to the public at no charge on its website. Bizapedia states that if a person or business
22
wishes to have his/her/its information hidden from public searches, then upon request, Bizapedia
23
will remove the information from its website at no charge. While Bizapedia does not charge people
24
to run searches on its website, Bizapedia is engaged in a commercial enterprise that generates
25
revenue primarily through advertising on its site.
26
Bizapedia alleges in its complaint, that the Defendants, whom it has not been able to
27
identify by their true names, have anonymously published false and disparaging statements about
28
Bizapedia on various “consumer watchdog” websites, including ,
1
, , and . The
2
published statements included statements that Bizapedia’s business conduct is fraudulent and
3
illegal, and that an officer or owner of Bizapedia was previously convicted for possession of child
4
pornography. Bizapedia has unsuccessfully attempted to identify Defendant(s) through use of
5
technical means. Bizapedia has also written to the “consumer watchdog” websites requesting that
6
they remove the offending posts. The websites have not directly responded to Bizapedia’s letters,
7
but in some instances have removed the offending posts. Bizapedia believes that the publisher of
8
the various defamatory posts are the same person or group of persons based on the similarity of the
9
information and language used in the posts. Bizapedia also believes that the Defendant(s) may be a
10
Nevada resident(s) and, on information and belief, is a competitor of Bizapedia, rather than a
11
consumer.
12
As a general rule, a party may not conduct discovery before the parties have met and
13
conferred pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26(f). A court may for good cause authorize early discovery
14
“‘for the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of justice.’ Fed. [R.Civ.Pro.]
15
26(d)(2).’” Quad International, Inc. v. Doe, 2013 WL 178141, *1 (E.D.Cal. 2013), citing Semitool,
16
Inc. v. Toyko Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D.Cal. 2002). Courts have permitted
17
limited discovery after a complaint is filed to permit the plaintiff to learn the identifying facts
18
necessary to permit service on the defendant. Columbia Ins. Co. v. SeesCandy.com, 185 F.R.D.
19
573, 577 (N.D.Cal. 1999), citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). The
20
court recognized that “[w]ith the rise of the Internet has come the ability to commit certain tortious
21
acts, such as defamation, copyright infringement, and trademark infringement, entirely on-line.
22
The tortfeasor can act pseudonymously or anonymously and may give fictitious or incomplete
23
identifying information. Parties who have been injured by these acts are likely to find themselves
24
chasing the tortfeasor from Internet Service Provider (ISP) to ISP with little or no hope of actually
25
discovering the identity of the tortfeasor.” Id. at 578.
26
To ensure that such early discovery will only be employed in cases where the plaintiff has in
27
good faith exhausted traditional avenues for identifying a civil defendant, and will not be used to
28
harass or intimidate, the court in Columbia Ins. Co. adopted the following requirements: (1) the
2
1
plaintiff should identify the defendant with sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine
2
that defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2) the plaintiff should
3
identify all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant; (3) the plaintiff should establish to
4
the court’s satisfaction that plaintiff’s suit against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss;
5
and (4) the plaintiff should file a request for discovery identifying the persons or entities on whom
6
the discovery process might be served and for which there is a reasonable likelihood that the
7
discovery process will lead to identifying information. Id., 185 F.R.D. at 578-79. See also Quad
8
International, Inc. v. Doe, 2013 WL 178141, at *2.
9
In this case, Bizapedia has reasonably satisfied the Court that the Defendants are real
10
persons or a group of persons who have anonymously posted the statements about Bizapedia on the
11
referenced “consumer watchdog” websites. Bizapedia’s assertion that a single person or group of
12
persons is responsible for the postings also appears reasonable given the common information and
13
language used in the postings. Plaintiff has also satisfied the Court that it has undertaken
14
reasonable efforts and steps to identify the Defendants prior to filing suit and moving for leave to
15
conduct early discovery, but has been unable to discover the true names of the Defendants through
16
such efforts. Bizapedia has also established to the Court’s satisfaction that Plaintiff’s suit against
17
the Defendants could withstand a motion to dismiss. Bizapedia has attached to its motion verbatim
18
copies of the anonymous postings. The court assumes, as it must on a motion to dismiss, that the
19
statements that Bizapedia is engaged in illegal or fraudulent conduct, or that one of its officers and
20
owners has been convicted of violating child pornography laws, are false. The statements are,
21
therefore, by their nature defamatory. Bizapedia has also sufficiently alleged a claim for relief
22
under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a), on the basis of its information and belief that the
23
Defendants are competitors of Bizapedia and the statements therefore constitute false advertising
24
designed to damage Bizapedia’s business. (It may be determined during discovery that the
25
Defendants are not competitors in which case the Lanham Act claim will not lie. Federal diversity
26
jurisdiction may also be otherwise lacking if it is determined that at least one of the Defendants,
27
like Plaintiff, is a Nevada resident.)
28
...
3
1
Bizapedia initially requests discovery in the form of subpoenas to be served on the four
2
“consumer watchdog” websites--, ,
3
, and -- which require them to disclose to
4
Plaintiff information sufficient to identify the user data for the listed posts on its websites. The
5
identifying information shall include, if possessed by the “consumer watchdog” websites, the name,
6
address, phone numbers, Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, Media Access Control (MAC) addresses,
7
and email addresses associated with each of the listed posts. Depending on the information
8
received pursuant to these subpoenas, Bizapedia may apply to the Court for permission to serve
9
subpoenas on the Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) for the IP addresses identified by the
10
“consumer watchdog” websites in order to further identify the person or persons responsible for the
11
subject posts.
12
13
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Bizapedia, LLC has shown good cause for the issuance of an order permitting it to
14
conduct early discovery in an effort to identify the true names of the Doe Defendants named in its
15
complaint. Accordingly,
16
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Bizapedia, LLC’s Ex Parte Motion for Leave to
17
Conduct Early Discovery (#9) is granted in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this order.
18
DATED this 17th day of March, 2014.
19
20
21
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?