Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00002/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00002-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

17CV0002 BTM (BGS)

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

DAVID J. GALLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNKNOWN NUMBER OF IDENTITY 

THIEVES, WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE 

AS YET UNKNOWN,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17CV0002 BTM (BGS)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR ORDER 

AUTHORIZING DISCOVERY OF 

IDENTITY AND LOCATION OF 

DEFENDANT TO FACILITATE 

SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND 

COMPLAINT

[ECF No. 2]

Plaintiff David J. Gallo’s Ex Parte Application for Order Authorizing Discovery of 

Identity and Location of Defendant to Facilitate Service of Summons and Complaint (“Ex 

Parte Application”) is before the Court. (ECF No. 2.) For the reasons discussed below, 

the Ex Parte Application is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

On January 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Unknown Number of 

Identity Thieves asserting a criminal conspiracy in which unknown identity thieves 

assumed Plaintiff’s identity to engage in fraudulent credit card charges in violation of 18 

Case 3:17-cv-00002-MMA-BGS Document 11 Filed 06/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17CV0002 BTM (BGS)

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

U.S.C. § 1028. (Compl. at 2-5.) The same day, Plaintiff filed the Ex Parte Application 

seeking to conduct discovery to identify the unknown identity thieves. (ECF No. 2.) 

On January 5, 2017, the Hon. Michael M. Anello issued an Order to Show Cause 

why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 

4.) Plaintiff filed a response to the OSC on January 13, 2017. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff’s 

Complaint was dismissed sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on February 

22, 2017. (ECF No. 6.) The Court rejected Plaintiff’s assertion that a state law claim 

based on the violation of a federal criminal statute conferred federal question jurisdiction. 

(Id.) However, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (Id.) 

On March 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 

8.) Plaintiff asserts a Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) 

claim, 18 U.S.C. § 1962. (Id.) On May 2, 2017, the Court found, upon review of the 

FAC that subject-matter jurisdiction over the action was proper. (ECF No. 9.) 

DISCUSSION

Discovery is not permitted, absent a court order, until the parties meet and confer 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). District 

courts in the Ninth Circuit generally consider the following “limiting principals . . . to 

determin[e] . . . whether discovery to uncover the identity of a defendant is warranted:”

(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 Ins. Co. v. 

Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999); see also Openmind Solutions, 

Inc. v. Does 1-39, No. C 11-3311 MEJ, 2011 WL 4715200, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 

2011); 808 Holdings, LLC v. Collective of Dec. 29, 2011 Sharing Hash, No. 12cv186 

MMA (RBB), 2012 WL 12884688, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2012); UGM Recordings, Inc. 

Case 3:17-cv-00002-MMA-BGS Document 11 Filed 06/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17CV0002 BTM (BGS)

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

v. Doe., No. C 08-1193 SBA, 2008 WL 4104214, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008) 

(collecting cases).

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application does not address any of these factors. The Ex 

Parte Application consists of repeating the allegations of his initial Complaint verbatim 

with a request to obtain records from a third-party credit card processor, an unidentified 

bank, and Comcast. Because the Ex Parte Application does not address any of the factors 

courts considers in determining whether early discovery is warranted and it is based on a 

Complaint that has been dismissed, the Ex Parte Application is DENIED without 

prejudice. 

Plaintiff may file a renewed request for early discovery if the above factors are 

explicitly addressed, including the third as to the FAC as opposed to the initial 

Complaint, and Plaintiff identifies specifically what types of discovery he is requesting. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: June 19, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00002-MMA-BGS Document 11 Filed 06/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3