Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02879/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02879-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 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

Northern District of California

E-Filed 6/15/16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YAHOO!, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOES 1 THROUGH 510, INCLUSIVE,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02879-LHK (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE 

LIMITED IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. No. 11

Plaintiff Yahoo! Inc. (“Yahoo”) sues 510 Doe Defendants (“Defendants”) for trademark 

infringement and other related claims. Yahoo alleges Defendants use false advertising to present 

themselves as Yahoo tech-support employees who can be reached through certain toll-free phone 

numbers and that, when called, Defendants “scam[]” Yahoo customers by “demand[ing] 

compensation and . . . confidential information” as the price for tech-support services. Dkt. No. 1 

at 5-7.

Yahoo moves the court for leave to conduct limited early discovery—service of “a Rule 45 

subpoena on seven nonparty toll-free service providers”—in order to identify the subscribers who 

“operat[e]” 51 toll-free numbers. Dkt. No. 11 at 3. The court, for the reasons discussed below, 

grants the motion as to one phone number and denies the motion as to the others.

Discussion

Discovery ordinarily may not take place when the plaintiff has not yet served any 

defendant, but a district court has discretion to permit limited early discovery for good cause 

shown. E.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 5:11-cv-01846, 2011 WL 1938154, at 

*1 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2011). “[I]n rare cases, courts have . . . permit[ed] limited discovery . . . to 

permit the plaintiff to learn the identifying facts necessary to permit service on the defendant.” 

Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999). A district court 

Case 5:16-cv-02879-LHK Document 18 Filed 06/15/16 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

Northern District of California

should permit “an opportunity through discovery to identify . . . unknown defendants, unless it is 

clear that discovery would not uncover the identities[] or that the complaint would be dismissed on 

other grounds.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980).

The undersigned is satisfied the discovery requested by Yahoo is reasonably likely to 

uncover Defendants’ identities. Attorney Tom Wyrwich declares: (1) he has investigated the 

identities of Defendants, Dkt. No. 14 at 1-2; (2) he learned that SOMOS, Inc. (“SOMOS”)

“administers the assignment of toll-free” phone numbers in North America, Dkt. No. 14 at 2; (3) 

SOMOS “identified” seven specific companies which provide service for 51 specific toll-free

numbers used by Defendants, Dkt. No. 14 at 2-4; and (4) those companies refuse to provide 

information about their subscribers unless Yahoo serves them with subpoenas, Dkt. No. 14 at 2-4. 

And Andrew Yolevich (“Yolevich”), an investigator employed by Yahoo since 2010, specifically 

describes the information and the experiences which lead him to believe that each of the 51 tollfree numbers is being used by “fake customer care companies [that] seek to convince users that 

they represent or are affiliated with Yahoo” in order to defraud Yahoo’s customers. Dkt. No. 12 at 

2-10. These declarations persuade the undersigned that the subscribers to the toll-free numbers are 

likely to be, or else to possess information about, Defendants.

The undersigned is not satisfied the requested discovery should be permitted, however,

because the undersigned currently believes most of Defendants should be dismissed for 

misjoinder. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 20 permits joinder of several defendants in 

a single case “where the claims against them arise from a single transaction or a series of closely 

related transactions.” Diabolic Video Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-2099, Case No. 10-cv-5865-

PSG, 2011 WL 3100404, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011). Misjoinder “is not a ground for 

dismissing” an entire case, but a court may, “on just terms, . . . drop a party” to cure misjoinder. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. A district court therefore has the authority to sever and dismiss defendants to 

cure misjoinder. See, e.g., Diabolic Video Productions, Inc., 2011 WL 3100404, at *4 (severing 

“Does 2 through 2099” and recommending that the claims against those defendants be “dismissed 

without prejudice” upon reassignment to a district judge); IO Group, Inc. v. Does 1-435, Case No. 

10-cv-04382-SI, 2011 WL 1219290, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011) (severing and dismissing 

Case 5:16-cv-02879-LHK Document 18 Filed 06/15/16 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

Northern District of California

“Does 2 through 435” with leave to file new cases against them individually); OpenMind 

Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39, Case No. 11-cv-3311-MEJ, 2011 WL 3740714 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 

2011); Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1 through 38, Case No. 12-cv-01451-KJN, 2012 WL 

2681828 (E.D. Cal. July 6, 2012). Yolevich describes “fake customer care companies” as one of 

several recurring problems which Yahoo addresses by employing an “E-Crimes Investigations 

Team[.]” Dkt. No. 12 at 1-2. This suggests that likeminded scammers have developed an 

identifiable genre of Yahoo-customer-care scams over time, but it does not suggest that all 

scammers who pose as Yahoo-customer-care agents are likely to be working together. The 

undersigned therefore doubts that the claims against the 510 Does in this case arise either from a 

single transaction or from a series of closely related transactions.

Yolevich does assert, at least, that “many” of the 51 toll-free numbers are likely to be 

operated by a single party or by “related parties” because: (1) the online “advertising” for the 

numbers is “similar in wording or appearance”; (2) several of the numbers use “similar[]” prerecorded “greetings . . . and hold music” and (3) the “representatives who answer the phone”

behave similarly. Dkt. No. 12 at 10. The undersigned is not persuaded, however, by the facts 

currently before the court. Yolevich’s declaration has 39 attached exhibits which contain images 

of online advertisements for 39 of the phone numbers, Dkt. No. 12 at 3-9, but Yolevich appears to 

lack evidence that the other 12 numbers have been advertised online, see Dkt. No. 12 at 9-10. It 

seems likely that the online advertisements submitted to the court have been authored by a 

multitude of people with varying degrees of English-language proficiency. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 12-

1 at 2 (“Welcome To Contact Yahoo Technical Support”); Dkt. No. 12-2 at 2 (“Fix Yahoo Spam

& Password Issues”); Dkt. No. 12-4 at 2 (“95% Customer Support Satisfaction Rating”); Dkt. No. 

13-19 at 2 (“FOR YOUR HAPPY LIFE, WE ARE HERE”). Yolevich also reports a wide variety 

of greetings, misrepresentations, and illicit requests for compensation which he heard when he 

called the different phone numbers. Dkt. No. 12 at 3-10. And although the same pre-recorded 

“Koobface Greeting” is used for 8 of the numbers, Dkt. No. 12 at 4-5, 7-9, there is no suggestion 

that any pre-recorded greetings are used for the other 43 numbers and there is no suggestion that 

“hold” music is used at all, Dkt. No. 12 at 3-10.

Case 5:16-cv-02879-LHK Document 18 Filed 06/15/16 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

Northern District of California

The undersigned is therefore presently convinced that Yahoo has improperly joined a 

disparate set of defendants who allegedly committed similar wrongs, but who do not seem to have 

committed those wrongs in a closely related series of transactions. See, e.g., Diabolic Video 

Productions, Inc., 2011 WL 3100404, at *3 (use of the same “peer-to-peer network” to infringe 

the same copyright failed to show joinder was permissible under FRCP 20). The apparent 

misjoinder means that early discovery would be inappropriate at to most of Defendants, e.g., id.

(applying Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642), and so the undersigned grants the motion for leave to take 

limited immediate discovery only with respect to the first ten Does—the Does associated with 

phone number 1-800-385-4304. Dkt. No. 1 at 8. The motion is otherwise denied. Yahoo may 

file, no later than June 20, 2016, a proposed subpoena which seeks identifying information and 

contact information for the RingCentral, Inc. subscriber who operates that number. Dkt. No. 14 at 

2.

The undersigned notes: (1) this order is based on the appearance of misjoinder, and does 

not purport to rule on whether misjoinder has actually occurred; and (2) the presiding district 

judge has authority to rule directly on the issue of misjoinder and to “modif[y]” the scope of this 

discovery order in accord with any such ruling, see IO Group, Inc., 2011 WL 1219290, at *2 

(modifying a prior discovery order which became “overbroad” upon a finding of misjoinder).

Conclusion

The motion for leave to conduct limited early discovery is granted in part and denied in 

part due to the appearance of misjoinder. Yahoo may file, no later than June 20, 2016, a proposed 

subpoena which seeks identifying information and contact information for the RingCentral, Inc. 

subscriber who operates phone number 1-800-385-4304.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/15/16

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-02879-LHK Document 18 Filed 06/15/16 Page 4 of 4