; Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 1:23-cv-1455, 2023 WL 4581650, at *2 (D.D.C. July 18, 2023) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (similar); Goodwin v. District of Columbia, No. 21-cv-806, 2021 WL 1978795, at *3 (D.D.C. May 18, 2021) (Howell, C.J.) (similar).
; Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 1:23-cv-1455, 2023 WL 4581650, at *2 (D.D.C. July 18, 2023) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (similar); Goodwin v. District of Columbia, No. 21-cv-806, 2021 WL 1978795, at *3 (D.D.C. May 18, 2021) (Howell, C.J.) (similar).
As the Advisory Committee noted, “[t]he change does not place on the party seeking discovery the burden of addressing all proportionality consideration” and “the parties' responsibilities would remain” as they had been prior to the 2015 amendment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 Advisory Committee Note; see also Goodwin v. District of Columbia, Case No. 21-cv-806, 2021 WL 1978795 (D.D.C. May 18, 2021) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 401) (“Yet, information may qualify as relevant . . . if it has ‘any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence' and ‘the fact is of consequence in determining the action.'”).
However, given that Rule 26 does not currently incorporate a good cause standard, the Court will evaluate Strike 3's Motion by assessing the relevance and proportionality of the proposed discovery. See generally Goodwin v. D.C., No. 21-cv-806, 2021 WL 1978795, at *3 n.1 (D.D.C. May 18, 2021) (conducting Rule 26 relevance and proportionality analysis to evaluate request for early discovery instead of applying “good cause” standard).
Here, where Defendant has yet to be identified, the Court cannot sufficiently address “the parties' resources.” Cf. Goodwin v.D.C., No. 21-cv-806, 2021 WL 1978795 at *6 n.2 (D.D.C. May 18, 2021) (BAH) (noting that “given the current posture of the case, before discovery has formally commenced, consideration of whether the discovery sought is ‘unreasonably cumulative or duplicative' is inapplicable”).
.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). “In cases involving as-yet-unknown defendants, in which the plaintiff cannot serve [his, her, or] its complaint- much less confer with the defendant-without obtaining identifying information from a third party, ‘the only potential avenue for discovery is [a court order under] Rule 26(d)(1).'” Goodwin v. District of Columbia, No. 21-cv-806 (BAH), 2021 WL 1978795, at *3 (D.D.C. May 18, 2021) (quoting Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 964 F.3d 1203, 1207 (D.C. Cir. 2020)) (second alteration in original). “A district court's discretion to order discovery, whether before or after
Here, where Defendant has yet to be identified, the Court cannot sufficiently address “the parties' resources.” Cf. Goodwin v. D.C., No. 21-cv-806, 2021 WL 1978795 at *6 n.2 (D.D.C. May 18, 2021) (BAH) (noting that “given the current posture of the case, before discovery has formally commenced, consideration of whether the discovery sought is ‘unreasonably cumulative or duplicative' is inapplicable”). Additionally, because “the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues” is the same as the relevance of the discovery request discussed above-that being to identify the unknown Defendant-the Court does not address this factor.
However, given that Rule 26 does not currently incorporate a good cause standard,the Court will evaluate Strike 3's Motion by assessing the relevance and proportionality of the proposed discovery. See generally Goodwin v. Dist. of Columbia, 2021 WL 1978795, at *3 n.1 (D.D.C. May 18, 2021) (conducting Rule 26 relevance and proportionality analysis to evaluate request for early discovery instead of applying “good cause” standard).
Here, where Defendants have yet to be identified, the Court cannot sufficiently address “the parties' resources.” Cf. Goodwin v. D.C., No. 21-cv-806, 2021 WL 1978795 at *6 n.2 (D.D.C. May 18, 2021) (BAH) (noting that “given the current posture of the case, before discovery has formally commenced, consideration of whether the discovery sought is ‘unreasonably cumulative or duplicative' is inapplicable”). Additionally, because “the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues” is the same as the relevance of the discovery request discussed above-that being to identify unknown Defendants-the Court does not address this factor. The Court addresses the remaining factors in turn.
However, given that Rule 26 does not currently incorporate a good cause standard, the Court will evaluate Strike 3's Motion by assessing the relevance and proportionality of the proposed discovery. See generally Goodwin v. Dist. of Columbia, 2021 WL 1978795, at *3 n.1 (D.D.C. May 18, 2021) (conducting Rule 26 relevance and proportionality analysis to evaluate request for early discovery instead of applying “good cause” standard).