Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00896/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00896-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mahmood Dawood
Plaintiff
Siki Eagle Sarl
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MAHMOOD DAWOOD, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SIKI EAGLE SARL, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:22-cv-00896 DAD AC 

ORDER 

 Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to permit limited third-party discovery. ECF No. 12. 

Plaintiff filed this putative class action on May 25, 2022. ECF No. 1. Defendant is a French 

corporation that produces air purifiers. Id. at 3. Defendant has not appeared in this case and the 

Clerk of Court entered default against it on October 20, 2023. ECF No. 9. Now before the court 

is plaintiff’s motion to conduct limited third-party discovery in anticipation of filing a motion for 

default judgment. ECF No. 12. 

Pursuant to Rule 26(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party may not seek 

discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except . . . 

when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). 

Courts often grant such requests upon a showing of “good cause.” See Am. LegalNet, Inc. v. 

Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2009). Good cause may exist where “the need for 

Case 2:22-cv-00896-DAD-AC Document 14 Filed 01/17/24 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 

2 

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

the responding party.” Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 

(N.D. Cal. 2002). Factors courts consider in determining whether there is good cause include “(1) 

the concreteness of plaintiff's showing of a prima facie claim of actionable harm; (2) the 

specificity of the discovery requests; (3) the absence of alternative means to obtain the 

subpoenaed information; (4) the need for subpoenaed information to advance the claim; and (5) 

defendant’s expectation of privacy.” Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 2:22-cv-0158 TLN 

CKD, 2022 WL 657932, *1, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39224, *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2022). 

 Plaintiff’s motion is substantively deficient. It addresses none of the factors identified 

above, and provides only the vaguest indication as to the discovery it seeks to pursue. The 

entirety of plaintiff’s argument is as follows: to move for default judgment plaintiff must “provide 

an accurate estimation of the amount of damages at issue. Defendant manufactures air purifiers 

and sells them through retailers such as Amazon, Target, or Walmart. ECF No. 1 ¶ 2. 

Accordingly, plaintiff seeks leave from the Court to take limited third-party discovery of entities 

which sell defendant’s products for the purpose of ascertaining the size of the putative class and 

damages.” ECF No. 12 at 3. Because plaintiff does not provide the information necessary for the 

court to grant the motion, the motion (ECF No. 12) is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 17, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-00896-DAD-AC Document 14 Filed 01/17/24 Page 2 of 2