Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02405/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02405-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0227 FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales

---

1

19-cv-2405-JLS-AGS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Collette STARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

ABC, Inc., XYZ, LLC, John Doe,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-cv-2405-JLS-AGS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR PRE-DISCOVERY 

SUBPOENAS (ECF No. 8)

Plaintiff, Collette Stark, claims that unknown defendants violated the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act by calling her cell phone. Stark provides some information about 

the unknown defendants, including phone numbers and websites. Stark moves for leave to 

serve pre-discovery subpoenas on various entities to identify the defendants. She 

previously made a similar motion, which this Court denied. (ECF No. 3; ECF No. 4.)

A plaintiff must show “good cause” to justify an early subpoena to identify a 

defendant. See Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. 16cv444 GPC (BGS), 2016 WL 1618227,

at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2016). This Court applies a four-part test to determine good cause:

[F]irst, the court may require the plaintiff to sufficiently identify the unknown 

party so it is clear there exists a real person or entity; second, the court may 

ask the plaintiff to show it has made a good faith effort to identify and serve 

the defendant; third, the court may require the plaintiff to prove its claim could 

withstand a motion to dismiss; finally, the court may also ask the plaintiff to 

show that the requested discovery will lead to identifying information about 

the defendant that would make service of process possible.

Case 3:19-cv-02405-JLS-AGS Document 9 Filed 04/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-cv-2405-JLS-AGS

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

Id.

Stark has sufficiently identified defendants to suggest that a real person or entity 

exists. Her web and entity searches also indicate a good-faith effort to identify those 

defendants with the limited information she had. Further, her complaint could withstand a 

motion to dismiss because it appears to facially state a claim for a Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act violation.

But Stark’s present motion suffers the same flaw as her previous motion. (See ECF 

No. 3; ECF No. 4, at 2.) She identifies T-Mobile as the defendants’ telephone provider and 

GoDaddy as the domain host of defendants’ websites who “is being paid to mask the 

ownership of defendant[s’]” domains. (ECF No. 8, at 3.) Yet she offers no sworn 

statements or other explanation of these assertions. Thus, there is no indication that the 

requested subpoenas on T-Mobile and GoDaddy will help identify defendants.

Stark also seeks to subpoena her telephone provider, AT&T. AT&T informed Stark 

that “a subpoena is necessary to release ownership information” of phone numbers. (ECF 

No. 8, at 3.) Although AT&T might have information revealing defendants’ identities, she 

does not specify what discovery items she seeks that would identify defendants. See

Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 580 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (a plaintiff 

must provide “a statement of reasons justifying the specific discovery requested” to show 

good cause (emphasis added)).

Because Stark does not show how her broad discovery request will lead to 

information identifying defendants, she fails to show good cause to justify early discovery. 

Therefore, her motion is DENIED.

Dated: April 22, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-02405-JLS-AGS Document 9 Filed 04/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2