Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01318/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01318-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Realty Executives International 

Incorporated, an Arizona corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

John Doe and Jane Doe, husband and wife, 

et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV11-1318-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 The Court has received a motion to quash Plaintiff’s subpoena, filed by an 

anonymous person identified in the motion simply as “Account Holder.” Doc. 10. The 

motion is fully briefed (Docs. 11, 12) and no party has requested oral argument. For 

reasons that follow, the motion will be denied. 

 Account Holder, who appears to be identified in the reply memorandum as Olga 

Rincon (Doc. 12 at 4), argues that the subpoena exceeds the scope of the Court’s 

July 13, 2011 order permitting limited discovery to identify the true defendants in this 

case (Doc. 8). Although it is true that Plaintiff has obtained the name of Oscar Rincon as 

the registrant of the domain name associated with the wrongful acts alleged in the 

complaint (realtyexecutivesbankruptcy.com), Plaintiff has also provided sufficient reason 

to question whether this is the true identity of the person who registered the domain name 

and mailed 6,000 postcards to persons in Maricopa County falsely suggesting that 

Plaintiff had filed for bankruptcy protection. These reasons include the fact that the 

Case 2:11-cv-01318-DGC Document 19 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

information obtained from the initial subpoenas in this case suggests that Oscar Rincon 

lives in Cali, Columbia and has no apparent connection to Plaintiff or its business. The 

Court concludes that Plaintiff’s subpoena to Wells Fargo to identify the owner of the 

credit card used to purchase the domain name falls reasonably within the scope of the 

Court’s order – it is calculated more accurately to identify the person or persons behind 

the wrongdoing alleged in the complaint.1

 In the reply memorandum, Account Holder makes a new argument: that Plaintiff 

has not made the showing necessary to conduct discovery designed to identify an 

unknown defendant. In addition to the fact that the Court generally will not consider 

arguments made for the first time in a reply memorandum, the Court finds Account 

Holder’s new argument unpersuasive. 

 At least some of the cases cited by Account Holder concerned efforts to identify 

persons who had engaged in anonymous Internet speech protected by the First 

Amendment. The Dendrite International decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court is 

such a case. See Doc. 12-3. Here, however, Plaintiff has not sued the Doe Defendants 

for anonymous Internet speech. 

 Other cases cited by Account Holder (Docs. 12-2, 12-3) describe the good cause 

showing required to conduct discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(d). The Court concludes that the showing has been made in this case. Plaintiff 

identified the Doe Defendants with as much specificity as possible given their use of an 

anonymously registered domain name, explained why it was unable to obtain their true 

identity through traditional means such as a “Whois” lookup, and presented a reasonable 

likelihood of making the identification through the proposed subpoenas. In addition, the 

 

1

 On November 2, 2011, Account Holder filed an unsigned declaration purportedly on behalf of Oscar Rincon in Columbia, asserting that he used Olga Rincon’s credit card to register the domain name. He provides no explanation why, and does not address the other alleged acts identified in Plaintiff’s complaint. Doc. 17. The Court cannot rely on an unsigned declaration in acting upon Plaintiff’s motion, and even if the declaration was 

signed it does not provide enough information for the Court to conclude that the 

subpoena should be quashed. 

Case 2:11-cv-01318-DGC Document 19 Filed 11/10/11 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

complaint pleads wrongful action that likely would survive a motion to dismiss. 

 Account Holder argues that Plaintiff has obtained sufficient information and 

should be required to name Oscar Rincon as a Defendant and proceed with the litigation, 

but Account Holder herself concedes that the Court may have not jurisdiction over him. 

To the extent the Wells Fargo subpoena seeks to identify other Doe Defendants within 

the Court’s jurisdiction, it clearly falls within the scope and intent of the Court’s 

July 13, 2011 order. 

 The fact that Account Holder appears to confirm that she is Olga Rincon in the 

reply memorandum does not render the subpoena moot. Ms. Rincon has not appeared as 

the moving person on this motion and provides no factual support for the somewhat 

vague suggestion that she is the holder of the credit card used to purchase the domain 

name. Plaintiff provides reason to believe that the address associated with Olga Rincon 

is not in fact her true residence, and she does nothing to dispel this uncertainty, stating 

vaguely that “Olga Rincon may have a US mailing address different than her home 

address.” Doc. 12 at 3. 

 Finally, Account Holder’s expressions of privacy concerns and her protest against 

“expansive discovery” (Doc. 12 at 6) are not well taken. Plaintiff seeks only to discover 

the identity of the card holder and others affiliated with the account – information the 

card holder and other account participants have given to Wells Fargo and about which 

she has not shown any particular privacy sensitivity. What is more, obtaining the identity 

of the card holder and others related to the account simply cannot accurately be described 

as “expansive discovery.” 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to quash the subpoena (Doc. 10) is denied. 

 Dated this 10th day of November, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-01318-DGC Document 19 Filed 11/10/11 Page 3 of 3