Porcher v. GoDaddy.com LLC

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Arthur Brud Porcher, No. CV-25-03117-PHX-KML 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. GoDaddy.com LLC, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Arthur “Brud” Porcher seeks permission to conduct early discovery. (Doc.

16 15.) Allowing early discovery is appropriate “in rare cases.” Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Usually such requests are “to permit the plaintiff to learn the identifying facts necessary to permit service on the defendant.” Id. In this case, Porcher knows the identity of at least one defendant but has not served that defendant. And the underlying conduct occurred in August 2019, but Porcher waited until August 2025 to file this suit. Porcher’s delay in filing suit weighs against allowing early discovery and there are no other circumstances establishing this is the rare case where authorizing early discovery would be appropriate.

24 Porcher is proceeding pro se but he still “must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). Local Rule 7.1 establishes the formatting requirements for filings. None of Porcher’s filings have complied with those formatting requirements but all future filings must. Failure to comply || may result in the court striking Porcher’s filings. In addition, Porcher recently filed a 2|| “Preservation Letter to GoDaddy.com, LLC.” (Doc. 14.) That document does not seek || relief from the court and should not have been filed on the docket. In general, documents 4|| related to discovery should not be filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d).

5 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Early Discovery (Doc. 15) is DENIED.

6 Dated this 18th day of September, 2025.

9 LY AQ TV. AA □ Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 10 United States District Judge _2-