Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02115/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02115-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

COUPONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOES 1-12,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-2115 PVT

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO

CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY; AND

DENYING MOTION FOR AN ORDER

DIRECTING TIME WARNER CABLE TO

DISCLOSE SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION

On June 9, 2005, Plaintiff Coupons, Inc. (“Coupons”) filed Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for an

Order Directing Time Warner Cable to Disclose Subscriber Information.1 Based on the moving

papers and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, to the extent Coupons seeks a preemptive order directing

non-party Time Warner to disclose subscriber information without first being subpoenaed, and

without notifying its subscriber, the motion is DENIED. Coupons has not shown that this court has

jurisdiction over Time Warner, since it appears Coupons has not yet served a subpoena on Time

Warner. And Coupons cites no authority which, absent valid service of a subpoena, allows a court to

order a non-party to disclose information. Nor has Coupons cited any legal authority for ordering

Time Warner not to notify its subscriber once Coupons does serve it with a subpoena. On the

contrary, the authority Coupons cites expressly requires a cable operator to notify its subscriber if it

Case 5:05-cv-02115-PVT Document 10 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 While Coupons did not expressly seek leave from Rule 26(d), judicial economy is best

served by deeming Coupons to have now done so. It appears from Coupon’s moving papers that

Coupons already served a subpoena on Deal-A-GoGo in violation of the Rule 26(d) automatic stay on

discovery. Coupons is cautioned that any future violation of the rules may well result in sanctions. 

ORDER, page 2

is ordered to disclose personally identifiable information. See, 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). 

While the court understands Coupons’ concern that notice to the subscriber might make

service of process more difficult, a subscriber generally has a right to challenge a plaintiff’s inquiry

into his or her identity. See, e.g., Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., et al. v. Does 1-40, 326 F.Supp.2d

556 (2004) (denying Doe defendants’ motion to quash subpoena seeking discovery of their identities

where the plaintiff made a concrete prima facie showing of copyright infringement); and Rocker

Mgmt. v. John Does, 2003 WL 22149380 (N.D.Cal. 2003) (granting Doe defendant’s motion to

quash subpoena seeking discovery of defendant’s identity where the plaintiff had not demonstrated

that the defendant had libeled the plaintiff in a Yahoo chat room). Coupons has not cited any

authority for depriving a Doe defendant of an opportunity to challenge a subpoena served on an

internet service provider seeking the defendant’s identifying information.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent Coupons’ motion seeks relief from Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 26(d) in order to conduct early discovery,2 the motion is GRANTED 

for the limited purpose of allowing Coupons to propound discovery aimed at identifying the Doe

Defendants. Relief from the Rule 26(d) automatic stay on discovery is warranted to allow Coupons

to propound discovery designed to obtain identifying information regarding the Doe Defendants. See

Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980) (noting that, where a plaintiff does not know

the identities of alleged defendants before filing a complaint, the plaintiff should be allowed to

conduct discovery to identify the unknown defendants). Absent further leave of court, this relief

from the automatic stay on discovery is limited to discovery seeking the Doe Defendants’ names,

telephone numbers, and addresses (including residential, business, mailing and/or email).

Dated: 6/15/05

 /s/ Patricia V. Trumbull 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02115-PVT Document 10 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 2