PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR LEAVETO TAKE EARLY DISCOVERYC-10-4381 (HRL)
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks leave from the Court to serve a Rule 45 third-party subpoenaon Verizon Internet prior to the Rule 26 Case Management Conference in this matter.Federal law provides for the relief Plaintiff seeks.
ARGUMENTFederal Rules Allow for Early Discovery
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that, generally, a party may notinitiate discovery before the parties have met and conferred pursuant to Rule 26(f).However, Rule 26(d) provides that a court may authorize earlier discovery “for theconvenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro.26(d). A court may grant a request to take discovery prior the parties’ meeting under Rule26(f) where the requesting party demonstrates good cause.
See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc.
208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be foundwhere the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice,outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.”
. Courts frequently find good cause incases involving claims of infringement and unfair competition.
.Courts have recognized that, “[s]ervice of process can pose a special dilemma forplaintiffs in cases like this in which the tortuous activity occurred entirely on-line.”
Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com
, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Accordingly,courts have developed the following factors to consider when granting motions forexpedited discovery to identify anonymous Internet users: (1) whether the plaintiff canidentify the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the court can determine thatdefendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2) all previous
Case4:10-cv-04381-CW Document4 Filed10/08/10 Page3 of 7