Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-05725/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-05725-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed January 5, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

SPECIALIZED BICYCLE COMPONENTS, 

INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DAVID BARTON, d/b/a/ buzzboysales, 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C10-05725 HRL 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT 

IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY 

[Re: Docket No. 7] 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc. (“Specialized”), a maker of bicycles, cycling 

accessories, and apparel, owns and uses the trademark “Specialized” and a “Specialized S Logo.” 

Docket No. 1 (“Complaint”), ¶ 11. Specialized filed suit against defendant “David Barton” 

(“Defendant”), the contact name for eBay, Inc. (“eBay”) seller “buzzboysales,” for trademark 

counterfeiting, infringement, and dilution under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., and 

other violations of state law. Id. at ¶ 1. Specialized claims that Defendant knowingly sold, offered 

for sale, or otherwise contributed to the sale of counterfeit versions of cycling accessories and 

apparel bearing Specialized’s trademarks and that Defendant’s alleged conduct resulted in consumer 

confusion. Id. 

Specialized discovered Defendant’s sale of the allegedly counterfeit items on eBay in 

November 2010. Id at ¶ 25. Thereafter, it worked with law enforcement officials in Provo, Utah — 

Case 5:10-cv-05725-EJD Document 9 Filed 01/05/11 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

where “buzzboysales” maintains a post office box — to determine the location and identity of 

“David Barton.” Docket No. 8 (“Love Decl.”), ¶ 5. It turns out that the name “David Barton” 

belongs only to one individual in the area, and the local law enforcement determined that he is not 

the “David Barton” associated with “buzzboysales.” Id. Thus, with the information currently 

available to it and after investigation, Specialized has been unable to determine the identity and 

location of Defendant. 

Specialized now moves the Court for leave to conduct immediate discovery to determine the 

information it needs to properly carry out the instant action. Docket No. 7 (“Motion”). Specifically, 

Specialized seeks leave to serve a subpoena on eBay that requests information concerning 

Defendant’s true name, address, telephone number, date of birth, and email address, as well as 

information about all sales of any good bearing the Specialized marks, including bank account 

information associated with the “buzzboysales” seller profile. Id. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

The practice of suing Doe defendants is generally disfavored in the Ninth Circuit. However, 

in cases where the identity of the alleged defendant will not be known prior to the filing of a lawsuit, 

“‘the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown 

defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint 

would be dismissed on other grounds.’” Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 

1999) (quoting Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). 

When an anonymous Internet user is a target defendant, limited discovery to identify the 

defendant may be permitted where a plaintiff: 

(1) identifies the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the court can 

determine that defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; 

(2) identifies all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant; 

(3) establishes to the court’s satisfaction that the lawsuit against defendant could 

withstand a motion to dismiss; and 

(4) states reasons justifying the specific discovery requested, and identifies a limited 

number of persons or entities upon whom discovery might be served and for which there is a 

Case 5:10-cv-05725-EJD Document 9 Filed 01/05/11 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

reasonable likelihood that the discovery will lead to identifying information about defendant that 

would make service of process possible. 

Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999). 

DISCUSSION 

Specialized has met its burden as set forth above. First, as a seller of items on eBay, 

Defendant is clearly an individual or entity. Second, as described above, Specialized has undertaken 

diligent and appropriate steps to identify and locate Defendant without the use of early discovery, to 

no avail. The “David Barton” and “buzzboysales” monikers have value only insofar as they can be 

associated with additional contact or identifying information. This information, though, is only 

possessed by eBay. As such, Specialized seeks to subpoena eBay for this otherwise unobtainable 

information. Third, the Court is satisfied that Specialized’s action would likely withstand a motion 

to dismiss, as it appears to have sufficiently alleged claims for violations the trademark-related 

violations it asserts. See Complaint. And fourth, Specialized has shown that there is a reasonable 

likelihood that its requested discovery will lead to information to identify Defendant and make 

service on Defendant possible. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Specialized’s motion for leave to conduct 

immediate discovery. Specialized may subpoena eBay for information concerning Defendant’s true 

name, address, telephone number, date of birth, and email address, as well as information about all 

sales of any good bearing the Specialized marks, including bank account information associated 

with the “buzzboysales” seller profile. In granting Specialized’s motion, the Court does not intend 

to foreclose any valid objections that may be raised by eBay in responding to any subpoena. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 5, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-05725-EJD Document 9 Filed 01/05/11 Page 3 of 4
4 

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

For the Northern District of California 

C10-05725 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Adam Paul Brezine, Esq adam.brezine@hro.com, steve.jang@hro.com 

5:10-cv-05725-HRL Please see General Order 45 Section IX C.2 and D; Notice has NOT been 

electronically mailed to: 

Stephen Sansom 

Holme Roberts & Owen LLP 

560 Mission Street 

25th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

 

Case 5:10-cv-05725-EJD Document 9 Filed 01/05/11 Page 4 of 4