Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00578/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00578-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATENT TECHNOLOGY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAWRENCE WOODMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00578-DMR 

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR EARLY 

DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. Nos. 115, 117

Plaintiff Patent Technology, LLC filed administrative motions seeking early discovery of 

information from third parties New Mexico Department of Health and Wells Fargo. [Docket Nos. 

115, 117.] The court has determined that these matters are appropriate for resolution without oral 

argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(a). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motions are 

denied.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This lawsuit stems from Plaintiff’s attempts to ship a trunk believed to contain $1.2 million 

in cash from Malaysia to the United States. In its third amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that 

in April 2013, Plaintiff and Defendant Marry Juliet Smith communicated via Skype and agreed 

that in exchange for $20,000, Plaintiff would receive and become the claimant of a trunk 

containing $1.2 million that allegedly belonged to Smith and would be shipped from Malaysia to 

the United States. Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) ¶ 21. From April until August 2013, 

Plaintiff sent money to various bank accounts in varying amounts for the payment of fees and 

taxes associated with the shipment of the trunk. This included payments to Smith and to 

Defendants PT Express and Security Company (“PT”) and Tao A. Olagoke via transfers to Wells 

Fargo and Bank of America bank accounts. After several months, Plaintiff refused to make any 

additional payments associated with the delivery of the trunk and the trunk was never delivered to 

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 118 Filed 11/13/16 Page 1 of 7
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

Plaintiff. Id. at ¶¶ 112, 144. Plaintiff sues the following defendants for breach of contract, money 

had and received, and fraud: PT, Lawrence Woodman, AIG Imports and Exports, Malaysian Bank, 

Smith, a “Mr. McCandles,” Olagoke, Irene Ifead, Uche Anyanwu, Umeadi Ifeadi, Prolong 

Services, Olubukola Lawal, and Dashub, a corporation. Id. at ¶¶ 5-17. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendants Ifead, Anyanwu, Ifeadi, Prolong Services, Lawal, and Dashub are individuals or 

corporations that participated in the fraud by receiving money from Plaintiff via Wells Fargo bank 

accounts to transfer to Smith. Id. at ¶¶ 12-17.

On July 27, 2015, the court granted in part Plaintiff’s motions for early discovery of thirdparty information in order to discover the true identities and contact information for the named 

Defendants and potential Defendants so that Plaintiff may serve Defendants with this lawsuit. 

[Docket No. 36 (Order on Mot. for Discovery).] The court found Plaintiff had shown good cause 

to serve early discovery on third party Microsoft for information identifying the accountholder for 

the Skype accounts “juliet.smith85” and “marry.juliet33” and the Outlook account “propropertylawchamber@outlook.com,” accounts allegedly used by Smith and McCandles to communicate 

with Plaintiff about the delivery of the trunk. Order on Mot. for Discovery at 7. The court denied 

Plaintiff leave to serve discovery on the New Mexico Department of Health for information about 

Smith’s birth and family records on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to show how such 

discovery was likely to lead to identifying information about Defendants. Id. at 8.

Plaintiff filed another administrative motion in February 2016 seeking relief related to its 

subpoena to Microsoft in the form of an order to Skype Communications S.a.r.l. directing it to 

respond to Plaintiff’s discovery. Additionally, Plaintiff again sought leave to seek discovery from 

the New Mexico Department of Health for information about Smith’s birth and third party Yahoo

for information associated with Smith’s email address. [Docket No. 79.] On March 29, 2016, the 

court granted the motion in part, granting Plaintiff leave to propound discovery on Yahoo and 

denying leave to seek discovery from the New Mexico Department of Health. [Docket No. 86.] 

The court subsequently denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of 

Plaintiff’s motion to obtain early discovery from the New Mexico Department of Health. [Docket 

No. 93.]

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 118 Filed 11/13/16 Page 2 of 7
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

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, a party may not initiate discovery before the parties have met and conferred 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). However, a court may authorize earlier 

discovery “for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(d). Courts have permitted “limited discovery ... after [the] filing of the complaint 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); see also Gillespie v. 

Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980) (when true identity of defendant is not known before 

complaint is filed, a 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”); Zoosk Inc. v. Doe 1, No. C 10-04545 LB, 2010 

WL 5115670, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010) (permitting plaintiff to serve early discovery on 

third-party internet service providers to discover identity of unknown Internet communicators).

The plaintiff must demonstrate good cause for earlier discovery. See Semitool, Inc. v. 

Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). In evaluating whether a plaintiff 

establishes good cause to learn the identity of the defendants through early discovery, courts 

examine whether the plaintiff (1) identifies the unknown party with sufficient specificity that the 

court can determine that the party is a real person who can be sued in federal court, (2) recounts 

the steps taken to locate and identify the party, (3) demonstrates that the action can withstand a 

motion to dismiss, and (4) demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that the discovery will lead to 

identifying information that will permit service of process. Columbia, 185 F.R.D. at 578-580.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Request for Discovery from New Mexico Department of Health

Plaintiff first moves the court for an order directing the State of New Mexico Department 

of Health “to verify the birth of Marry Smith in New Mexico as Marry Smith,” now that she is a 

named defendant in this action.1 [Docket No. 115 at 4.] According to Plaintiff, its discovery to 

 

1

The court notes that in its proposed order accompanying the motion, Plaintiff seeks the 

production of “Documentation Identifying the Birthday and Mailing Address of Defendant Marry 

Smith and her immediate family.” [Docket No. 115-2.] Plaintiff does not explain this 

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 118 Filed 11/13/16 Page 3 of 7
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

Yahoo for information associated with Smith’s email address, including the account registrant’s 

contact information, yielded “little information that could help identify Defendant Marry Smith.” 

Id. at 3. The court notes that this is Plaintiff’s fourth attempt to obtain this discovery. [See Docket 

Nos. 20, 79, 92.]

Plaintiff asserts that Smith has provided him with three different birthdates, id. at 8, Ex. H, 

and that she has refused to sign a “Power of attorney to request” her birthdate information from 

the State of New Mexico. Id. at 9, Exs. E-G. According to Plaintiff, its attempts to verify Smith’s 

identity have all been “thwarted by excuses and misinformation.” Id. at 8-9. Plaintiff contends 

that New Mexico birth certificates are “restricted access records,” and state law restricts access to 

the registrant’s immediate family members or “those who represent tangible proof of legal interest 

in the requested record.” [Docket No. 115 at 4.] Once more, Plaintiff does not cite any law for 

this statement. Although it asserts that it “certainly meets the standard for tangible proof of legal 

interest,” it cites no support for this assertion, such as what qualifies as “tangible proof of legal 

interest” and how Plaintiff satisfies the standard. None of the cases Plaintiff cites address the 

circumstances under which a private civil litigant may discover confidential medical records such 

as birth certificates. See id. at 4-6. 

As with Plaintiffs’ prior motions, Plaintiff does not explain how the requested discovery is 

likely to lead to identifying information about Smith and why a subpoena directed to the New 

Mexico Department of Health is the proper means through which to discover information about 

Plaintiff’s birth records. See Columbia, 185 F.R.D. at 577. Plaintiff’s request for discovery from 

the New Mexico Department of Health is denied. 

B. Request for Discovery from Wells Fargo

Plaintiff next moves for discovery from Wells Fargo Bank. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendants Ifead, Anyanwu, Ifeadi, Prolong Services, Lawal, and Dashub participated in the 

alleged fraudulent scheme by receiving money from Plaintiff via Wells Fargo bank accounts to 

transfer to Smith. Plaintiff seeks “the owner’s name(s), bank information, mailing and physical 

 

discrepancy, and the court will limit its analysis of the request in the motion for verification of 

“the birth of Marry Smith.”

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 118 Filed 11/13/16 Page 4 of 7
5

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

address, other Wells Fargo accounts and related identification and information” in order to serve 

the TAC. [Docket No. 117 at 9.] 

Plaintiff’s motion for early discovery from Wells Fargo must also be denied. As an initial 

matter, Plaintiff did not set forth the specifics of his request for discovery, such as the specific 

bank account information purportedly associated with these six defendants. The TAC contains 

allegations about Plaintiff’s transfers of money to Defendants’ Wells Fargo accounts. TAC ¶¶ 

123-27, 138, 143. However, the TAC actually identifies only one bank account number, Wells 

Fargo bank account 1102463591, which Plaintiff alleges is associated with Prolong Services. See 

id. at ¶ 123. The remaining allegations of money transfers refer to corresponding Exhibits 78-79, 

81-82, 93, and 96. These exhibits consist of emails, Wells Fargo transaction receipts, and a copy 

of a cashier’s check, all of which contain redactions of what appear to be account numbers. 

Plaintiff did not submit unredacted copies of these exhibits with his TAC (see discussion below) 

and did not otherwise provide the court with the specific discovery he seeks to propound on Wells 

Fargo.

Moreover, Plaintiff fails to satisfy all of the Columbia factors with respect to the request 

for discovery from Wells Fargo. As to the second Columbia factor, Plaintiff did not describe any 

steps it has taken to locate and identify Ifead, Anyanwu, Ifeadi, Prolong Services, Lawal, and 

Dashub. This factor is “aimed at ensuring that plaintiffs make a good faith effort to comply with 

the requirements of service of process and specifically identifying defendants.” Columbia, 185 

F.R.D. at 579. In the absence of any showing that Plaintiff has attempted to locate and identify 

these six defendants short of serving discovery on Wells Fargo, the court finds that Plaintiff has 

not met this factor. 

More importantly, the court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded any claims 

against these six defendants. See Columbia, 185 F.R.D. at 579 (requiring plaintiff to establish 

“that plaintiff’s suit . . . could withstand a motion to dismiss.”). Plaintiff states that these six 

defendants “performed in the fraud scam” by “accepting money on behalf of Defendant Marry 

Smith.” [Docket No. 117 at 9.] “A cause of action for fraud [under California law] requires the 

plaintiff to prove (a) a knowingly false misrepresentation by the defendant, (b) made with the 

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 118 Filed 11/13/16 Page 5 of 7
6

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

intent to deceive or to induce reliance by the plaintiff, (c) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and 

(d) resulting damages.” Glenn K. Jackson Inc. v. Roe, 273 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 

Wilkins v. Nat’l Broadcasting Co.,Inc., 71 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1082 (1999)). The TAC is devoid 

of allegations of any representations at all by Defendants Ifead, Anyanwu, Ifeadi, Prolong 

Services, Lawal, and Dashub, let alone any “knowingly false representations.” There are also no 

allegations in the TAC of these six defendants’ intent to deceive Plaintiff or to induce reliance. It 

appears that Plaintiff also alleges a breach of contract claim against Ifead, Anyanwu, Ifeadi, 

Prolong Services, Lawal, and Dashub. The elements of a breach of contract claim under 

California law are: (1) the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, 

(3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff. Reichert v. Gen. Ins. Co. of 

Am., 68 Cal. 2d 822, 830 (1968). The TAC does not contain any allegations of the existence of a 

contract between Plaintiff and Ifead, Anyanwu, Ifeadi, Prolong Services, Lawal, and Dashub. 

Plaintiff also alleges a claim for money had and received against Ifead, Anyanwu, Ifeadi, 

Prolong Services, Lawal, and Dashub. “A cause of action for money had and received is stated if 

it is alleged the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum for money had and received 

by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff.” Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin, 53 Cal. App. 4th 

445, 460 (1997) (quotation omitted). “[M]oney had and received is a common count which, under 

California law, is not a specific claim but is instead a form of pleading used to aver the existence 

of monetary indebtedness.” Mar Partners 1, LLC v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. C 10-

02906 WHA, 2011 WL 11501, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2011). “‘When a common count is used as 

an alternative way of seeking the same recovery demanded in a specific [claim], and is based on 

the same facts,’ it does not survive if the underlying claim does not survive.” Id. (quoting 

McBride v. Boughton, 123 Cal. App. 4th 379, 394 (2004)). Here, Plaintiff’s money had and 

received claim seeks the same relief and appears to be based on the same facts as its fraud and 

breach of contract claims. Thus, as its common count claim is derivative of its other claims, 

which are insufficiently pleaded as discussed above, Plaintiff’s money had and received claim is 

also insufficient. 

In sum, given Plaintiff’s failure to specify the exact discovery it seeks from Wells Fargo 

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 118 Filed 11/13/16 Page 6 of 7
7

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

and failure to satisfy the second and third Columbia factors, its motion seeking leave to propound 

discovery on Wells Fargo is denied.

C. Redactions in the TAC

As noted above, there are numerous exhibits attached to the TAC which contain 

redactions. However, Plaintiff did not submit unredacted copies of these exhibits with his TAC 

and did not file a motion to seal or otherwise seek leave to redact any information in the TAC. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), “no document may be filed under seal (i.e., closed to 

inspection by the public) except pursuant to a court order that authorizes the sealing of the 

particular document, or portions thereof.” The court previously denied Plaintiff’s motion to seal 

bank account numbers in connection with its motions for early discovery, holding that Plaintiff 

failed to meet its burden of showing that the material was sealable. Order on Mot. for Discovery 

at 12. Therefore, within seven days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file an administrative 

motion to file under seal the exhibits to the TAC in compliance with Local Rule 79-5(d), or shall 

re-file the unredacted versions of the exhibits to the TAC.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s administrative motions for early discovery of 

information from third parties New Mexico Department of Health and Wells Fargo are denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 118 Filed 11/13/16 Page 7 of 7