Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03799/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03799-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

NO. C 09-03799

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR EXPEDITED 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 02/22/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

BRIGHT IMPERIAL LTD., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DOES 1 through 20, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-03799 RS 

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR 

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 

In August 2009, plaintiff Bright Imperial, Ltd. (“BIL”) filed a complaint against 20 unnamed 

defendants, alleging violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq., as 

well as unfair competition and other state law claims. BIL, which operates an adult entertainment 

website called redtube.com, averred that unknown persons, without permission, altered the DNS 

Name servers associated with BIL’s registered domain name. As a result, BIL claimed that users 

attempting to access redtube.com were, for a period of time, directed to another website unaffiliated 

with BIL. According to BIL, the DNS Name server change substantially damaged its business and 

caused it to lose millions of visits by its customers. The identities of the alleged hackers, however, 

remain unknown to BIL. 

BIL has now filed the instant motion, which seeks permission to serve subpoenas requiring 

the production of documents and deposition testimony sufficient to identify the Doe defendants. 

Case 5:09-cv-03799-RS Document 12 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 2
NO. C 09-03799

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

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

For the Northern District of California 

BIL recognizes that, ordinarily under Rule 26(d), “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source 

before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Nonetheless, 

Rule 26 does allow for courts to make exceptions to this rule in limited instances, which BIL 

contends apply here. 

While the Ninth Circuit has held that, “[a]s a general rule, the use of ‘John Doe’ to identify a 

defendant is not favored,” it has nonetheless recognized that in certain situations the identity of the 

alleged defendants cannot be known prior to the filing of a complaint. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 

F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). On such occasions, “the 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.” In this case, 

BIL has made a preliminary showing that it is entitled to expedited discovery under Gillespie. 

Moreover, BIL has cited several instances from this Circuit in which district courts have granted 

expedited discovery requests similar to this one. E.g., Order of August 23, 2007, Arista Records 

LLC, et al. v. Does 1-16, No. 07-1641 (E.D. Cal. 2007); Order of April 23, 2007, Sony BMG Music 

Entertainment, et al. v. Does 1-6, No. 3:07-CV-00581 (S.D. Cal. 2007); Order of May 14, 2004, 

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Does 1-2, No. C 04-0960 (W.D. Wash. 2004). 

The orders in these cases, however, differ in one significant respect from the relief requested 

here: they permit the moving plaintiffs to engage in expedited discovery by subpoenaing a specific, 

named entity. In Arista Records, that entity was the University of California, Davis; in Sony BMG 

Music Entertainment, it was SBC Internet Services, Inc.; and in UMG Recordings, it was Microsoft 

Corporation. The instant motion, by contrast, contains no such limitation; rather, it effectively 

requests an open subpoena power. BIL is accordingly directed to provide the Court with a proposed 

order containing the name(s) of the specific entity or entities it desires to subpoena. Any such 

proposed order should be filed no later than ten (10) days from the entry of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 02/22/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:09-cv-03799-RS Document 12 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 2