The opinion of the court was delivered by: Elizabeth D. Laporte Judge United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 3:12-cv-01000-EDL
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO TAKE EXPEDITED DISCOVERY AND ISSUING [D.E. No. 5.]
WHEREAS on March 9, 2012, Plaintiff Thomas W. Mansfield presented to the Court Plaintiff's Motion for Administrative Relief to Take Expedited Discovery ("Motion").
WHEREAS on April 2, 2012 the Court issued an Order Denying Motion to Take Early Discovery Without Prejudice (the "Prior Order"). [D.E. No. 8].
discovery is appropriate in this case, but Plaintiff must significantly limit the scope of the 8 proposed subpoenas to seek only information sufficient to identify Defendants before the 9 request can be granted." 10 to the Court his Notice of Submission of Revised Subpoenas Pursuant To Court's Order. 12
13 exceptional case justifying relief and good cause exists to allow discovery to be 14 conducted in advance of the required Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference 15 on discovery. 16
WHEREAS the Court finds that Plaintiff's revised subpoenas attached as Exhibit A to the Notice of Submission of Revised Subpoenas Pursuant to Court's Order (the Having considered the Motion, memoranda, supporting declarations, the Revised Subpoenas, the pleadings and papers on file in this action, the relevant statutory and 21 case law, and good cause appearing therefore:
WHEREAS in the Prior Order the Court found that "The Court believes that early
WHEREAS on April 9, 2012, Plaintiff Thomas W. Mansfield ("Plaintiff") presented
WHEREAS the Court finds that the present circumstances constitute an "Revised Subpoenas") are narrowly tailored and comply with the Prior Order.
1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Administrative Relief to Take Expedited Discovery [D.E. No. 5] is GRANTED as to the Revised Subpoenas. and serve the Revised Subpoenas for the limited purpose of obtaining information 26 sufficient to identify the names and locations of Defendants.
2. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is authorized to issue
3. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that if an entity served with a subpoena under Paragraph 2 of this Order is a cable operator as that term is defined in 47 U.S.C. §522(5), the Court hereby authorizes the disclosure of that entity's subscriber's 4 personally identifiable information to the extent such disclosure is necessary to comply 5 with the subpoena, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §551(c)(2)(B). If an entity served with a 6 subpoena under Paragraph 2 of this Order is a telephone corporation as that term is 7 used in California Public Utility Code section 2891, the Court hereby authorizes the ...