Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02910/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02910-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOTTLEHOOD, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2910 MMA (MDD)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

MOTION TO EXPEDITE

DISCOVERY

[DOC. NO. 4]

vs.

THE BOTTLE MILL, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to expedite discovery filed on January 6,

2012. (Doc. No. 4). Plaintiff filed its complaint on December 14, 2011, against Defendant The

Bottle Mill, its two general partners and John Does 1 through 25. (Doc. No. 1). In summary,

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in copyright infringement and unfair competition by

copying Plaintiff’s products, advertisements and trademarks. Id. Plaintiff asserts that there is good

cause for this Court to authorize early discovery in this case to allow Plaintiff to identify the Doe

defendants that Plaintiff alleges assisted in the infringing acts of Defendant. 

Typically, discovery does not commence against a party until the conference required by

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) has occurred. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d). The Court concurs with Plaintiff that it has

the authority to expedite discovery for good cause. Id. The Court is not convinced that good cause

to expedite discovery is present in this case. 

Plaintiff has identified and sued the entity and individuals alleged to be primarily

- 1 - 11cv2910 MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-02910-MMA-MDD Document 5 Filed 01/10/12 Page 1 of 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

responsible for the infringement and unfair competition. The Doe defendants, according to

Plaintiff, are believed to have assisted in the infringing activities. The Court does not agree that

the need to identify these defendants is of such importance, in consideration of the administration

of justice, as to outweigh any prejudice to the responding party. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo

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

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: January 10, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 2 - 11cv2910 MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-02910-MMA-MDD Document 5 Filed 01/10/12 Page 2 of 2