AF Holdings LLC v. Doe

3 Citing cases

  1. Jacobo v. Doe

    1:22-cv-00672-DAD-BAK (BAM) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2022)

    See, e.g., AF Holdings LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-02207-KJM-DAD, 2012 WL 6608993, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2012) (granting leave to conduct expedited discovery to determine the identity of a Doe defendant in a copyright infringement action); First Time Videos, LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-00621-GEB-EFB, 2012 WL 1355725 (E.D. Cal. Apr.18, 2012) (same); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, No. 5:08-cv-03999-RMW, 2008 WL 4104207 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2008) (same); Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-43, No. 3:07-cv-02357-LAB-POR, 2007 WL 4538697 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2007) (same). The Ninth Circuit has held that “where the identity of the alleged defendant[ ] [is] not [ ] known prior to the filing of a complaint[, ] 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.”

  2. Najafi v. Pompeo

    Case No. 19-cv-05782-KAW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    "Good cause for expedited discovery is frequently found . . . in cases where the plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction." AF Holdings LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-2207 KJM DAD, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178961, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2012). As Plaintiffs concede, however, this factor alone does not warrant expedited discovery. (See Pls.' Mot. at 9.)

  3. Vision Films, Inc. v. Doe

    Civil Action No. 12-1746-LPS-SRF (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2013)   Cited 20 times

    Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1 through 13, 2012 WL 4956167, at *2 n.2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2012). See, e.g., AF Holdings LLC v. Doe, 2012 WL 6608993, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2012); Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1-5, 2012 WL 2001968, at *2; Hard Drive Prods, v. Does 1-90, 2012 WL 1094653, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012) (explaining that "the court will not assist a plaintiff who seems to have no desire to actually litigate but instead seems to be using the courts to pursue an extrajudicial business plan against possible infringers"); Digital Sin, 279 F.R.D. at 242 (discussing coerced, unjust settlements). The court finds it prudent to incorporate some protections, for a limited duration, to avoid unintended consequences of the disclosure of confidential information as to the John Doe defendants.