Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00578/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00578-8/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 PLAINTIFF'S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION RE 

DISCOVERY FROM THIRD PARTIES

Re: Dkt. No. 79

Plaintiff Patent Technology, LLC filed an administrative motion seeking early discovery of 

information from third parties Skype, Yahoo, and the New Mexico Department of Health. 

[Docket No. 79.] The court has determined that this matter is appropriate for resolution without 

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

granted in part and denied in part.

I. DISCUSSION 

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 amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that in 

April 2013, Plaintiff and a person named 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. Am. Compl. ¶ 17. 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, including an April 22, 2013 payment of $11,500 

by Plaintiff to PT via transfer to a Bank of America bank account. Am. Compl. ¶ 30. After 

several months, Plaintiff refused to make any additional payments associated with the delivery of 

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 86 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 5
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

the trunk, (Am. Compl. ¶ 108), and the trunk was never delivered to Plaintiff. Plaintiff sues PT, 

Lawrence Woodman, Tao Olagoke, AIG Import and Export Company, and Ibrahim G. Ahmed for 

breach of contract, money had and received, and fraud. It also names several other “potential 

defendant[s],” including Smith, whom Plaintiff alleges is “an individual allegedly born and lived 

in Las Cruses [sic], New Mexico” and who currently resides in Malaysia, and her associate, a Mr. 

McCandles. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11. 

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 the accountholder’s name, address, phone 

number, birth date, other known email addresses, profile URL, or other information that identifies 

the accountholder for the Skype accounts “juliet.smith85” and “marry.juliet33” and the Outlook 

account “proproperty-lawchamber@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 the present administrative motion on February 2, 2016. In its motion, 

Plaintiff seeks 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. It also seeks leave to 

propound discovery on third parties New Mexico Department of Health and Yahoo. 

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 

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 86 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 5
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

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 578-780.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Request for Order to Skype Communications S.a.r.l.

Plaintiff first seeks an order “specifically request[ing] Marry Smith Skype information” 

from Skype Communications S.a.r.l. (“Skype”). Pl.’s Mot. at 2. Plaintiff served a subpoena on 

Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) seeking, inter alia, information related to Smith’s Skype 

account. It asserts that it received a response from Microsoft in which Microsoft states 

Skype Communications S.a.r.l. will only respond to requests for user 

records upon receipt of an order from a Luxembourg court. Skype 

Communications S.a.r.l. is not able to comply with any other verbal 

or written request. To formally request records, please send the hard 

copy court order to Skype Communications S.a.r.l., 23-29 Rives de 

Clausen, L-2165 Luxembourg.

Pl.’s Mot. Ex. A.

Plaintiff apparently seeks an order directing Skype to provide Plaintiff with the requested 

information, although it acknowledges that this “may conflict” with Skype’s stated requirements. 

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 86 Filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 5
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 court has already granted Plaintiff leave to serve a subpoena on Microsoft seeking Skyperelated information. Skype apparently requires a Luxembourg court order to release any user 

information. It is not clear how a second order from this court satisfies or relates to Skype’s 

requirements. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request is denied. 

B. Request for Discovery from New Mexico Department of Health

Plaintiff next moves the court for an order directing the New Mexico Department of Health 

to “verify the birth of Marry Smith in New Mexico.” Pl.’s Mot. at 3. According to Plaintiff, 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.” Id. Plaintiff does not cite any law for this statement, and although it asserts 

that it “certainly meets the standard for tangible proof of legal interest,” it cites no evidence or 

support for this assertion. According to Plaintiff, Smith’s birth date on Skype is listed as February 

10, 1980, but in an email to Plaintiff, Smith stated a different date for her “passport birth date.” 

Id. Plaintiff asserts that it needs to discover if either of these birthdates are valid. It also states 

that “since Marry Smith has provided a story about her family inheritance,” Plaintiff seeks 

unspecified “residential information” that the Department of Health has on record. Id. at 4.

Plaintiff submits no evidence supporting its assertions about Smith’s various birthdates and 

provides no specifics about the “residential information” it seeks. More importantly, as with 

Plaintiff’s first request for such discovery, Plaintiff has failed to 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. Plaintiff’s request for discovery from the New Mexico Department 

of Health is denied. 

C. Request for Discovery from Yahoo

Finally, Plaintiff seeks leave to propound discovery for accountholder information 

associated with Yahoo email account “marrysmith210@yahoo.com.”1 Plaintiff seeks the 

 

1

Plaintiff previously sought leave to request this information from Microsoft (see Docket No. 20), 

which the court denied because Plaintiff failed to explain why Microsoft would have information 

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 86 Filed 03/29/16 Page 4 of 5
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

following information associated with the accountholder: “name, physical address, phone number; 

full name of user; full URL to Yahoo profile; school/networks; known birth date; known 

associated email addresses; IM account ID; current phone numbers, name, address and other 

information” regarding the email address. Pl.’s Mot. at 4. For the reasons stated in the court’s 

July 27, 2015 order, the court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing to establish good 

cause to permit this early discovery. See Order on Mot. for Discovery at 6-7; see also Am. 

Compl. Ex. 60 (email copied on marrysmith210@yahoo.com). Plaintiff may serve a third party 

subpoena to Yahoo for the accountholder’s name, address, phone number, birthdate, other known 

email addresses, profile URL, or other information that identifies the accountholder for the Yahoo 

account “marrysmith210@yahoo.com.” 

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s administrative motion for leave to conduct early discovery is granted in part and 

denied in part. Plaintiff may serve a third-party subpoena on Yahoo for information related to the 

account “marrysmith210@yahoo.com.” Plaintiff must include a copy of this order and the court’s 

July 27, 2015 order with its third-party subpoena to Yahoo. This order does not preclude Yahoo 

from contesting any discovery served by Plaintiff based on undue intrusion, burden, or other 

grounds. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 45(c)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

 

about another company’s accounts. See Order on Mot. for Discovery at 5 n.7.

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 86 Filed 03/29/16 Page 5 of 5