1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Collette STARK, Case No.: 19-cv-2405-JLS-AGS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRE-DISCOVERY 12 v. SUBPOENAS (ECF No. 8) 13 ABC, Inc., XYZ, LLC, John Doe, 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, Collette Stark, claims that unknown defendants violated the Telephone 17 Consumer Protection Act by calling her cell phone. Stark provides some information about 18 the unknown defendants, including phone numbers and websites. Stark moves for leave to 19 serve pre-discovery subpoenas on various entities to identify the defendants. She 20 previously made a similar motion, which this Court denied. (ECF No. 3; ECF No. 4.) 21 A plaintiff must show “good cause” to justify an early subpoena to identify a 22 defendant. See Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. 16cv444 GPC (BGS),

, 23 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2016). This Court applies a four-part test to determine good cause: 24 [F]irst, the court may require the plaintiff to sufficiently identify the unknown party so it is clear there exists a real person or entity; second, the court may 25 ask the plaintiff to show it has made a good faith effort to identify and serve 26 the defendant; third, the court may require the plaintiff to prove its claim could withstand a motion to dismiss; finally, the court may also ask the plaintiff to 27 show that the requested discovery will lead to identifying information about 28 the defendant that would make service of process possible. 1 || Td. 2 Stark has sufficiently identified defendants to suggest that a real person or entity 3 ||exists. Her web and entity searches also indicate a good-faith effort to identify those 4 || defendants with the limited information she had. Further, her complaint could withstand a 5 || motion to dismiss because it appears to facially state a claim for a Telephone Consumer 6 || Protection Act violation. 7 But Stark’s present motion suffers the same flaw as her previous motion. (See ECF 8 || No. 3; ECF No. 4, at 2.) She identifies T-Mobile as the defendants’ telephone provider and 9 || GoDaddy as the domain host of defendants’ websites who “is being paid to mask the 10 |}ownership of defendant[s’]” domains. (ECF No. 8, at 3.) Yet she offers no sworn 11 ||statements or other explanation of these assertions. Thus, there is no indication that the 12 ||requested subpoenas on T-Mobile and GoDaddy will help identify defendants. 13 Stark also seeks to subpoena her telephone provider, AT&T. AT&T informed Stark 14 || that “a subpoena is necessary to release ownership information” of phone numbers. (ECF 15 || No. 8, at 3.) Although AT&T might have information revealing defendants’ identities, she 16 ||does not specify what discovery items she seeks that would identify defendants. See 17 || Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com,

(N.D. Cal. 1999) (a plaintiff 18 || must provide “a statement of reasons justifying the specific discovery requested” to show 19 || good cause (emphasis added)). 20 Because Stark does not show how her broad discovery request will lead to 21 ||information identifying defendants, she fails to show good cause to justify early discovery. 22 || Therefore, her motion is DENIED. 23 24 ||Dated: April 22, 2020 Ki 25 6 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 27 28