Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02468/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02468-0/pdf.json

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

- 1 - 10-cv-2468-L(POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NADER MIKIHAIL, Civil No. 10-cv-2468-L (POR)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED

DISCOVERY

[ECF No. 3]

v.

ROBKEN INTERNATIONAL

INVESTMENT, LTD, also known as Robken

Int’l Investment LTD, and DOES, 1-20,

inclusive,

Defendants.

On December 1, 2010, Plaintiff Nader Mikihail filed a complaint against Robken

International Investment, LTD and Does 1-20 for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges he negotiated

a contract with Defendant Robken International Investment to purchase two tractors for the agreed

sum of $124,000. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Pursuant to their agreement, Plaintiff claims he wired $124,000

to Defendants; however, the tractors were never delivered. (Id.)

On March 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to conduct expedited discovery. (ECF

No. 3.) He explains a Canadian individual, Mr. Robert Kent, persuaded him to purchase the tractors

from Defendant. (Id.) At Kent’s direction, Plaintiff wired money to a Citibank N.A. account. (Id.) 

Since then, Plaintiff represents that he has been unable to locate Defendants in order to serve the

summons and complaint in this case. (Id.) He requests leave to serve a subpoena on Citibank N.A.

“in order to ascertain more information regarding the Defendant and its’ [sic] bank account.” (Id. at

Case 3:10-cv-02468-L-DHB Document 4 Filed 03/28/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 10-cv-2468-L(POR)

3.) If Defendants cannot be located, Plaintiff states he may request to serve the summons and

complaint through publication. Information regarding Defendants’ location would be necessary for

such a motion. (Id. at 4.)

If granted leave to conduct expedited discovery, Plaintiff also requests leave to serve the

subpoena without giving notice to Defendants. (Id. at 4.) He contends sending the subpoena to

Citibank N.A., Defendants’ known bank, would give them the best opportunity to receive actual

notice. (Id.) In the alternative, Plaintiff requests to serve the subpoena without giving notice to

Defendants. (Id.)

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), discovery does not commence

until parties to an action meet and confer as prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f),

unless by court order or agreement of the parties. A court order permitting early discovery may be

appropriate “where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of

justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron

America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D.Cal. 2002). 

After reviewing Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for leave to take early discovery, and the

accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, the Court finds Plaintiff has not made an

adequate showing to warrant expedited discovery. The benefits of expediting discovery from a

third-party are unclear in this case. The Court cannot ascertain whether Kent is a representative of

Defendants, nor can the Court determine the affiliation between Diamondbank, PLC, Robert Kent

Equipment and Defendants. The motion seems to suggest funds wired to Diamondbank, PLC’s

Citibank N.A. account were forwarded to Defendants. (ECF No. 3 at 2-3.) However, at this time it

is unclear whether account information for Diamondbank PLC’s Citibank account would yield the

location of Defendants. 

Conversely, the Court finds prejudice to Defendants may be significant. Plaintiff requests

expedited discovery to ascertain “more information” on Defendants’ alleged bank account. The

scope of this request is undefined. If Plaintiff seeks to discover “more information” than

Defendants’ address alone, he fails to explain why such information could not be discovered during 

the normal course of litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery is DENIED

Case 3:10-cv-02468-L-DHB Document 4 Filed 03/28/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 10-cv-2468-L(POR)

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 28, 2011

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: The Honorable James Lorenz

All parties

Case 3:10-cv-02468-L-DHB Document 4 Filed 03/28/11 Page 3 of 3