Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05313/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05313-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

COBBLER NEVADA, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOE-73.15.228.64, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-05313-EDL 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO TAKE EARLY 

DISCOVERY 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 6, 9 

On November 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed this copyright infringement action, identifying 

Defendant by an internet protocol (“IP”) address only. On November 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 

motion for leave to serve a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on 

Defendant’s internet service provider (“ISP”)1 that is “limited to the name and address of the 

individual/individuals associated with the IP address named as defendant.” 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) requires a court order for discovery if it is 

requested prior to a Rule 26(f) conference between the parties. Generally, a “good cause” standard 

applies to determine whether to permit such early discovery. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron 

Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be found where the need for 

expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice of 

the responding party.” Id. To determine whether there is “good cause” to permit expedited 

discovery to identify doe defendants, courts consider whether: 

(1) the 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 plaintiff’s suit against defendant could withstand a 

 

1

 Plaintiff identifies Cox Communications as Defendant’s ISP in its motion. However, throughout 

its supporting memorandum, Plaintiff identifies Comcast Cable as Defendant’s ISP. 

Case 3:15-cv-05313-CRB Document 12 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 2
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 Californi

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. 

OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1–39, 2011 WL 4715200, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011) (citing 

Columbia Ins. Co.v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578–80 (N.D. Cal. 1999)). 

Here, although it appears from Plaintiff’s supporting memorandum that good cause can be 

established, Plaintiff has not filed any evidence in support of its motion, such as a declaration 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a verified complaint. See James v. Oakland Police Dep't, 2015 

WL 5680919, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2015) (Illston, J.) (verified complaint signed under 

penalty of perjury and based on personal knowledge, and not purely belief, is admissible 

evidence); OpenMind, 2011 WL 4715200, at *2-*5 (granting a motion for early discovery of the 

identity of a defendant identified by an IP address that was supported by a declaration from the 

plaintiff’s counsel establishing that good cause existed for the motion); MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-

149, 2011 WL 3607666, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2011) (same). Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered 

to file a declaration or other evidence showing that good cause exists for its motion and clarifying 

the identity of Defendant’s ISP within one week of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 11, 2015 

________________________ 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-05313-CRB Document 12 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 2