Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00548/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00548-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

jgstea w.m »ras

JUN 2 2 201? 1

CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT

of California

r f deputyj

2

BY 3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LYCURGAN, INC., a California

corporation, d/b/a/ ARES AMOR,

11 Case No.: 14CV548-JLS-BGS

12 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO TAKE IMMEDIATE

DISCOVERY OF PERSON(S) MOST

KNOWLEDGEABLE AT THE

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL,

TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND

EXPLOSIVES REGARDING

IDENTITIES OF UNKNOWN

NAMED DEFENDANTS

13 Plaintiff,

v. 14

EARL GRIFFITH, an individual,

UNKNOWN NAMED

TECHNOLOGIST, an individual

UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS I-VII

individuals, and DOES 1-X, in their

individual capacities,

15

16

17

18

19 Defendants.

[Doc. No. 117] 20

21 Presently before the Court is plaintiffs ex parte Motion to Take Immediate

Discovery From the Person(s) Most Knowledgeable at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms, and Explosives (“BATFE”) Regarding the Identities of the Unknown Named

Defendants in this case (“Motion”). [Doc. No. 117.] Also before the Court is defendants’

Opposition to the Motion [Doc. No. 131] and plaintiffs Reply in Support ofthe Motion

[Doc. Nos. 132-1; 134].

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

l

14CV548-JLS-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 140 Filed 06/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 9
Specifically, plaintiffseeks to conduct immediate discovery by serving the Proposed

Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents “on the person(s) most

knowledgeable at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE or

the Agency) prior to a conference of the parties required by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(f) in order to leam the identities of Defendants (1) Unknown Named

Technologist, (2) Unknown Named Agents I-VII, and (3) Does I-XI, in their individual

capacities (the ‘Unknown Named Defendants’) and to serve them with process.” [Doc.

No. 117-3, at pp. 10, 34.] Plaintiff asserts that the information sought is necessary “in

order to amend its pleadings to name the Unknown Named Defendants” and contends that

he will “suffer undue prejudice without such discovery in the form of dismissals and

delays from suit.” Id. For the reasons provided below, the Court denies without prejudice

plaintiffs Motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 11, 2014, plaintifffiled a Complaint, seeking a declaratory judgment that

its “EP Arms unfinished lower receiver is not a firearm,” a temporary restraining order

(“TRO”), and injunctive relief forbidding the BATFE from seizing plaintiffs unfinished

lower receivers and customer list. [Doc. Nos. 1, 2.] The same day, the Court granted

plaintiffs request for a TRO. [Doc. No. 4.] On March 14, 2014, the Court clarified that

the TRO did not enjoin defendants from lawfully seizing evidence and contraband pursuant

to a valid search warrant. [Doc. No. 6.]

After the issuance and execution of a search warrant in which BATFE agents seized

property from four of plaintiffs facilities, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint

(“FAC”) on December 17, 2014, alleging First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment

violations. [Doc. No. 42.] Plaintiff brought its FAC against B. Todd Jones in his official

capacity as Director of the BATFE. Id. The FAC also named the following individual

defendants: Earl Griffith, Unknown Named Technologist, Unknown Named Agents I-VII,

and Does I-X. Id. On November 19, 2015, the Court dismissed without prejudice

plaintiffs first, fourth, eighth, and ninth claims against DefendantJones under both Federal

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

14CV548-JLS-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 140 Filed 06/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 9
Rules ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). [Doc. No. 106.] On July 5,2016, the Court

issued an Order Directing Plaintiffto Either File a Second Amended Complaint or Face

Involuntary Dismissal of Action for Failure to Prosecute noting that “[i]n the more than

seven months since [the Court’s Order at Doc. No. 106], Plaintiff has taken no further

action in this case.” [Doc. No. 108, at p. 1.] The Court cited Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b) and gave plaintiffthirty (30) days to file a second amended complaint. Id.

at p. 2.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

On August 5, 2016, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). [Doc.

No. 109.] Plaintiff brought its SAC against Earl Griffith, in his individual capacity, and

the Unknown Named Defendants, in their individual capacities. Id. On February 28,2017,

defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss as to Mr. Griffith on the following grounds: (1)

plaintiff cannot establish personaljurisdiction over Mr. Griffith; (2) plaintiff did not timely

serve Mr. Griffith (citing Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 4(m)); (3) plaintiffs SAC does

not state a plausible claim for relief against Mr. Griffith; and (4) Mr. Griffith is entitled to

qualified immunity. [Doc. No. 115-1.] On May 30, 2017, defendants also filed a Motion

to Dismiss Unknown Named Defendants under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 4(m) and

12(b)(5), contending that the Rule 4(m) deadline expired in this case more than two years

ago, and plaintiffhas neither applied for nor obtained an extension. [Doc. No. 126-1.] Both

of defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are currently pending before Judge Sammartino.

II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

Discovery is generally not permitted without a court order before the parties have

conferred pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 26(f). Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). Courts

in the Ninth Circuit generally grant requests for expedited discovery when the moving party

shows good cause. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Elec. Am. Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-276 (N.D.

Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in

consideration ofthe administration ofjustice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding

party. [Citation omitted.] In determining whether there is good cause to allow expedited

discovery to identify doe defendants, courts consider factors including whether: (1) the

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

14CV548-JLS-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 140 Filed 06/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 9
plaintiff can identify the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the Court can

determine that defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2)

the plaintiff has identified all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant; (3) the

plaintiffs suit against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) the plaintiff

has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood of being able to identify the

defendant through discovery such that service of process would be possible.” Columbia

Ins. Co. v. seescand.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs Argument

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Plaintiff argues at length in the Motion about the facts which plaintiff establish good

cause to take early discovery, including: (1) how the defendants are real persons subject to

a lawsuit whom plaintiff has identified with specificity; (2) the steps taken to serve the

Unknown Named Defendants; (3) the claims against the Unknown Named Defendants are

not subject to dismissal; and (4) that plaintiff will likely identify the Unknown Named

Defendants through what plaintiff contends is narrowly targeted discovery. [Doc. No. 117-

3, at pp. 17-33.] Further, plaintiffs counsel contends in his Declaration attached to the

Reply in Support ofthe Motion as follows:

Plaintiff seeks narrowly tailored discovery to obtain the names of the

Unknown Named Defendants who participated in a specific event: the

raids on [p]laintiffs four facilities on March 15, 2014, as well as those

individuals who were responsible for obtaining the search warrant and

its supporting affidavit.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 The only step left in obtaining the names of the Unknown Named

Defendants is to ask for their identities, to which the person(s) most

knowledgeable at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and

Explosives should have access. Good faith responses to the proposed

deposition topics and requests for production ofdocuments should reveal

the requested names and identities. The proposed subpoena to testify at

a deposition in a civil action for the person most knowledgeable at the

BATFE, and request for production of documents, is attached as Exhibit

D [to McMillan’s Declaration for Reply in Support ofthe Motion].

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

14CV548-JLS-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 140 Filed 06/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 9
1

[Doc. No. 132-1, at p. 13.]

Plaintiffs initial proposal to conduct immediate discovery was to serve the Proposed

Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents on the person(s) most

knowledgeable at the BATFE, which are attached to the Motion as Exhibit G. [Doc. No.

117-3, at p. 34.] However, in the Reply, plaintiff changed its proposed method ofobtaining

the discovery sought in response to an argument made by the defendant detailed below.

[Doc. No. 132-1, at p. 8; see also Doc. No. 131, at pp. 9-10]. Specifically, in the Reply,

plaintiff “respectfully requests that the Court allow Plaintiff to substitute the proposed

Notice ofDeposition for a Rule 45 subpoena to the BATFE, attached as Exhibit D to Scott

A. McMillan’s supporting declaration.” [Doc. No. 132-1, atp. 8.]

B. Defendants’Arguments

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Defendants make four general arguments in the Opposition to plaintiffs Motion.

[Doc. No. 131, at pp. 4-10.] First, defendants assert that the Court should deny plaintiffs

Motion until Judge Sammartino rules on defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss for failure

to prosecute. [Doc. No. 131, at p. 4 {See, e.g., Berlin Media Art v. Does 1-654, Case. No.

11-03770, 2001 WL 36383080, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2011) (denying motion for

expedited discovery into the identity of anonymous Doe defendants because “Plaintiffs

motion ofexpedited discovery has failed to demonstrate that the complaint could withstand

a motion to dismiss.”).] Defendants contend that plaintiff “took no action in this case to

identify and serve the Unknown [Named] Defendants for 2 14 years after naming these

Defendants in the FAC filed on December 17, 2014.” [Doc. No. 131, at p. 4.] Defendants

argue that plaintifffailed to meet the requirements ofFederal Rule ofCivil Procedure 4(m),

to identify and serve these defendants within 120 days, or show good cause for an

extension. Id.

Second, defendants contend that if the pending Motion to Dismiss for Failure to

Prosecute [Doc. No. 126] is granted, then the instant discovery Motion will be moot. [Doc.

No. 131, at p. 5.] However, ifthe Motion to Dismiss is denied, then defendants contend

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

14CV548-JLS-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 140 Filed 06/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 9
1 that a renewed meet and confer will be more productive than in the instant procedural

posture. Defendants highlight that one ofthe objections raised in the meet and confer in

connection with the instant Motion was “that the time for serving the Unknown [Named]

Defendants] under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) expired long ago.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

Defendants argue that the Court’s ruling on this same issue in the pending Motion to

Dismiss will inform this objection. Id.

Third, defendants argue that the scope ofthe discovery sought by plaintiff exceeds

what is necessary to identify the Unknown Named Defendants. [Doc. No. 131, at p. 5.]

Plaintiffs proposed Notice of Deposition would require production of multiple witnesses

to testify about ten different topics. Id. at p. 6. Further, the proposed Notice ofDeposition

includes a “lengthy Request for Production ofDocuments with three pages ofinstructions

and definitions, and fifteen Requests for Production ofDocuments.” [Doc. No. 131, at p. 7

(internal citation omitted).] Specifically, defendants contend:

[T]he discovery that Plaintiff actually seeks permission to conduct

against ATF is not ‘limited solely to discovery that would aid in

identifying the Unknown Named Defendants,’ as Plaintiffs Ex Parte

Application represents. Instead, Plaintiffseeks discovery bearing on the

merits ofits case (see especially Request for ProductionNos. 11-14), and

expressly demands production of attorney-client communications (see

Request for Production No. 12). The breadth of this discovery and the

burden that it will impose on [BATFE] far exceeds what is necessary and

proportionate to accomplish the limited purpose of identifying the

Unknown Defendants.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 Id. at p. 9 (internal citations omitted).

22

Finally, defendants contend that plaintiffs initial proposal of serving a Notice of

Deposition and Request for Production ofDocuments on the person(s) most knowledgeable

at the BATFE, attached as Exhibit G to the Motion “would have no legal effect” because

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

14CV548-JLS-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 140 Filed 06/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 9
BATFE is not a party to this case.1 [Doc. No. 131, at p. 9.] Defendants assert that a Rule

45 subpoena is required to obtain testimony and documents from third parties. Id. (internal

citation omitted). In response to this argument, in the Reply, plaintiff requests that the

Court allow plaintiff to substitute the proposed Noticed of Deposition for a Rule 45

subpoena to the BATFE, attached as Exhibit D to Scott A. McMillan’s declaration. [Doc.

No. 132-1, at p. 8.]

C. Analysis

Based on a review ofplaintiffs moving papers, it is apparent that it would be overly

burdensome at this early stage of the litigation for defendants and/or third parties to be

ordered to provide plaintiff with access to the information that plaintiff now seeks.

Contrary to plaintiffs representations, the expedited discovery sought here is not narrowly

tailored and seeks far more than the minimum amount needed to identify the Unknown

Named Defendants.

For example, the proposed Notice of Deposition would require a witness to testify

about topicsthat go well beyond the identity ofthe Unknown Named Defendants, including

but not limited to the following: (1) the identities and contact information for all BATFE

personnel responsible for forming the affidavit; (2) the identities and contact information

for all BATFE personnel involved in advising on the legal grounds for the formation ofthe

affidavit and search warrant; (3) the identities and contact information for all BATFE

personnel who were custodians of plaintiffs inventory as described in the SAC 12, 63,

79-82, 134, 144, and 164, including but not limited to, business documents [SAC ^ 80],

contents of plaintiffs safe [SAC 81], 5,804 unfinished polymer lower receivers [SAC f

82], plaintiffs “Rudius” unfinished pistol frames [SAC ^ 134], plastic bins [Id.], and

customer list [SAC Tf 144]; (4) communications regarding the determination that 80% of

unfinished AR-15 lowerreceivers were classified as a “firearm” as applied to plaintiff; and,

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

i BATFE was dismissed from this case on November 19,2015 and is not a named defendant in the

instant SAC. [Doc. Nos. 106, 109.] 28

7

14CV548-JLS-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 140 Filed 06/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 9
(5) the identities and contact information for all custodians of all documents pertaining to

the above-listed topics/requests [Doc. No. 131, at pp. 6-7]. Similarly, almost all of the

fifteen requests for production of documents proposed by plaintiff are overbroad and go to

the merits ofthe case. Id. at pp. 8-9 (see, e.g., RFP No. 13 seeking “all documents relating

to the search warrant” and RFP No. 14 seeking “all documents relating to the affidavit”).

Plaintiff argues that “injustice would prevail if [pjlaintiffs proposed Motion is

denied, as [p]laintiff has no other recourse to proceed in this case than to take early

discovery.” [Doc. No. 132-1, at p. 7.] Further, plaintiff argues that its requests are “made

so that it may determine the identities ofthe unknown, named defendants, as well as Does

who should be added to the case based on the allegations and those individuals involved in

the raid and events leading up to them.” Id. at p. 8.

Notwithstanding plaintiffs argument, there is no suggestion that the time necessary

to narrow the issues in the case through the currently pending Motions to Dismiss made

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) will make it difficult or impossible for

plaintiff to obtain access to the discovery he seeks in the normal course. In fact, the

defendants have raised a legal challenge to plaintiffs SAC contending that the Federal

Rule ofCivil Procedure Rule 4(m) deadline expired more than two years ago, and plaintiff

has neither applied for nor obtained an extension. [Doc. No. 126-1, at p. 2.] Therefore, the

Court should first be given an opportunity to decide defendants’ pending Motions to

Dismiss, which appear to raise potentially valid legal challenges, before considering

plaintiffs overarching discovery requests. If the Court denies the pending Motions to

Dismiss, such rulings will necessitate renewed meet and confer sessions between the

parties regarding the scope of necessary discovery. After discovery commences in the

normal course, plaintiffwill have an opportunity to serve subpoenas and written discovery

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 //

8

14CV548-JLS-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 140 Filed 06/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 9
1 requests on defendants and third parties, and to then, if necessary, request leave to amend

his SAC to add new parties that could not have been discovered earlier.2

Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, including the overbroad nature of

plaintiffs’ discovery demands and the procedural posture ofthe case, the Court finds that

plaintiffhas not established good cause for expedited discovery.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiffs Motion [Doc. No. 117] must

be DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for an order allowing

him to proceed with discovery on an expedited basis.

IT SO ORDERED.

Dated: June/V, 2017

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

United States Magistrate Judge

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2 Under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 15(a)(2), a complaint may be amended after responsive

pleadings have been filed “with the court’s Leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) “The Court should freely

give leave when justice so requires.” Id. Even after the Court enters a Scheduling Order under Federal

Rule ofCivil Procedure 16(b) and sets a deadline for amending the pleadings, the deadline can be

modified upon a showing of “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). “Rule 16’s ‘good cause’ standard

focuses on the diligence ofthe party seeking amendment.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605,

607 (E.D. Cal. 1999).

25

26

27

28

9

14CV548-JLS-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-KSC Document 140 Filed 06/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9