Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee, INC. v. John Does

Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee, INC. v. John Does

Ratings: (0)|Views: 25,330 |Likes:
Published by Alex Fitzpatrick

More info:

Published by: Alex Fitzpatrick on Jan 30, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/24/2012

pdf

text

original

 
   U
   N   I   T   E   D
   S
   T   A   T   E   S
   D
   I   S   T   R   I   C   T
   C
   O   U   R   T
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
   U
   N   I   T   E   D
   S
   T   A   T   E   S
   D
   I   S   T   R   I   C   T
   C
   O   U   R   T
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNorthern District of California
RON PAUL 2012 PRESIDENTIALCAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, INC.,Plaintiff,v.JOHN DOES, 1-10,Defendants._____________________________________/ No. C 12-0240 MEJ
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S EXPARTE APPLICATION FOREXPEDITED DISCOVERY(DKT. NO. 5)
On January 13, 2012, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit against Defendants John Doe 1 through10 for (1) false designation of origin, (2) false advertising, and (3) common law libel anddefamation. Dkt. No. 1. Five days later, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application seeking to takeexpedited discovery from YouTube and Twitter so that it could learn the identities of the Doedefendants. Dkt. No. 5.Pursuant to FRCP 26(d)(1), courts may authorize early discovery before the FRCP 26(f)conference for the parties’ convenience and in the interest of justice. Courts within the Ninth Circuitgenerally use a “good cause” standard to determine whether to permit such discovery.
See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
, 768 F.Supp.2d 1040, 1042 (N.D. Cal. 2011);
Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc.
, 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause may befound where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice,outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.”
Semitool
, 208 F.R.D. at 276. In determiningwhether there is good cause to allow expedited discovery to identify anonymous internet usersnamed as doe defendants, courts consider whether: (1) the plaintiff can identify the missing partywith sufficient specificity such that the court can determine that defendant is a real person or entity
Case3:12-cv-00240-MEJ Document8 Filed01/25/12 Page1 of 2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->