Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04490/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04490-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carla Camargo
Plaintiff
Milton Miltiadous
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLA CAMARGO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MILTON MILTIADOUS; DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04490-JSC 

ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION 

FOR LIMITED EXPEDITED 

DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. No. 11

Plaintiff Carla Camargo, a California resident and citizen of Brazil, filed suit against 

Defendant Milton Miltiadous, an Australian citizen and resident of Tokyo, Japan, alleging claims 

for libel, invasion of privacy, and false light. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte 

Motion for Expedited Early Discovery. (Dkt. No. 11.) Having considered Plaintiff’s arguments 

and relevant authority, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Miltiadous is responsible for a number of defamatory 

statements that appear about Plaintiff in internet postings on the websites www.ripoffreport.com, 

http://www.scamexposure.com, www.flickr.com, and www.tumblr.com. (Complaint at ¶¶ 2-3.) 

Plaintiff alleges that these statements “falsely and maliciously represent that Plaintiff engaged in 

wrongful, unlawful and/or unethical acts, including deceiving Defendant and failing to repay a 

loan.” (Id. at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff requested that the websites take down the posts and identify the 

individual(s) who made the posts, but received no response. (Id. at ¶¶ 29-31.) 

Case 3:14-cv-04490-JSC Document 12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 4
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 California

In October 2014, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant Miltiadous, an Australian citizen 

and resident of Tokyo, Japan, and Does 1-10 regarding the statements appearing on the 

aforementioned websites seeking compensatory and punitive damages. (Dkt. No. 1.) According 

to the docket, Plaintiff has not yet served Defendant Miltiadous and her motion does not identify 

any steps she has taken to do so. As Miltiadous has not been served, or at least has not appeared, 

discovery has not yet commenced. 

On February 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed the underlying Ex Parte Application to Conduct 

Expedited Discovery wherein Plaintiff seeks leave to take depositions and obtain documents from 

Xcentric, which owns and operates ripoffreport.com, and Yahoo!, which owns tumblr.com and 

flickr.com.1 

LEGAL STANDARD

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. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (d)(1) (“A 

party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required 

by Rule 26(f), except . . . by court order.”).

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 

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.

 

1

Plaintiff has not submitted copies of the proposed subpoenas.

Case 3:14-cv-04490-JSC Document 12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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 California

OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1–39, No. 11–3311, 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)).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks leave to conduct early discovery to (1) obtain additional evidence about 

Defendant Miltiadous’s online post, and (2) identify the doe defendants. (Dkt. No. 11 at 2:12-22.)

As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not addressed why she has not served Defendant 

Miltiadous; service could, among other things, alleviate the need to file an ex parte motion to 

conduct discovery regarding his online post. Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration indicates that notice 

of the lawsuit “was provided to Defendant Miltiadous via unofficial service in Japan.” (Dkt. No. 

11-1 at ¶ 12.) There is no explanation for why such service was provided “unofficial[lly]” and not 

in accordance with the Hague Convention pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(1). 

Although Rule 4(m)’s 120-day service requirement does not apply to foreign defendants, Plaintiff 

still must serve defendant within a reasonable timeframe to pursue this lawsuit. Miyasaki v. 

Treacy, No. 12-CV-04427, 2014 WL 6687321, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2014) (noting that “the 

amount of time allowed for foreign service is not unlimited.”). 

With respect to Plaintiff’s alternative basis for seeking early discovery—to assist in 

identifying the doe defendants—Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts from which the Court could 

conclude that the doe defendants are real individuals who could be sued in federal court. 

Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any specific allegations with respect to Does 1-10. Instead, 

Plaintiff alleges that 

The true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, 

individual or otherwise, of DOES 1 through 10 (collectively, 

“Defendants DOE” or “DOES”) are unknown to Plaintiff, who 

therefore sues such DOES by use of fictitious names. Each of the 

defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in 

some manner for the wrongful acts and for the injury and damage to 

Plaintiff herein alleged. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend 

this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of DOES once 

such names and capacities have been ascertained. 

(Complaint at ¶ 14.) In her motion for early discovery, Plaintiff contends that she seeks leave to 

issue the subpoenas “to properly identify each of the DOE defendants, and their respective 

locations, so they can be properly named to this action,” but Plaintiff does not make any showing 

Case 3:14-cv-04490-JSC Document 12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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 California

as to how subpoenas on Xcentric and Yahoo! could yield information sufficient to identify the doe 

defendants. In counsel’s declaration, she suggests that she is seeking information regarding 

identities of the owners of the account names Bob-TKY, milts 03, and cm257 which are registered 

with www.ripoffreport.com, www.tumblr.com, and flickr.com (websites owned by Xcentric and 

Yahoo!, respectively); however, Plaintiff has not pled that the owners of these account names are 

the doe defendants. Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579 (concluding that plaintiff had 

sufficiently pled the identity of the doe defendants accused of online tortious activity where 

plaintiff alleged that the doe defendants were operating under identified aliases which had been 

used to register the domain names at issue).

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause to conduct early expedited 

discovery regarding either Defendant Miltiadous’s online post or the unspecified doe defendants. 

The motion is denied without prejudice. Any renewed motion for early discovery should attach 

the proposed subpoenas and address the issues raised in this Order.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 11.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2015

______________________________________

 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-04490-JSC Document 12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 4