United States District Court, N.D. California
SIMPLE DESIGN LTD., a British Virgin Islands limited company, doing business as LEAP FITNESS Plaintiff,
CANDYMOBI INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO., a Hong Kong company, BEIJING AIPU CENTURY TECHNOLOGY CO., a China company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
Vince Chhabria Judge.
Simple Design Ltd. has filed an administrative motion for
leave to take limited discovery prior to a Rule 26(f)
conference. (Docket No. 13.)
seeks to obtain physical addresses and information regarding
the named Defendants and to identify the Doe defendants named
in the Verified Complaint (Docket No. 1), each of
whom are allegedly responsible for Federal Trademark
infringement, violation of the Lanham Act and unfair
competition occurring as the result of their unauthorized
display and distribution of two or more software applications
designed for women's health and fitness, being published
via the Google Play Store at www.play.google.com/store.
support of its Motion, Plaintiff has filed the Declaration of
Stephen L. Anderson which has advised this Court that after
mailing a copy of the Summons and Complaint in this action to
Defendant Candymobi Information Technology Co. in Hong Kong,
that all of the Defendant's contact information,
including its physical address has been removed from the
corresponding website, namely, www.candymobi.com. (Docket
Nos. 11-1 and 12-1 at paragraph 4).
has also filed printouts from the Google Play Store
identifying each of the allegedly infringing software
applications. (Exhibits to Anderson Declaration - Docket
Nos. 11-2 and 12-2.) As is shown within such Exhibits:
-firstname.lastname@example.org is the e-mail address listed on the
Google Play Store for the developer “Candyapps
Studio” related to the software application entitled:
“Women workout - 30 day fitness app for weight
loss”, alleged as “App Icon 1” and
“Infringing App. 1” at paragraphs 8, 8(1), 24, 25
and elsewhere within Plaintiff's Verified Complaint
(Document No. 1);
-email@example.com is the e-mail address listed on the
Google Play Store for the developer “Super Fitness
App” related to the software application entitled:
“Workout for women - Female Fitness to lose
weight”, alleged as “App Icon 2” and
“Infringing App. 2” at paragraphs 8, 8(2), 27 and
elsewhere within the Verified Complaint; Id. and
-firstname.lastname@example.org is the email address listed on the
requests leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on third-party
source, Google, Inc. (“Google”). Finding good
cause for the motion
reasons set forth in this order, the Court GRANTS plaintiff
leave to serve subpoenas on Google.
Google email addresses and developer account
seeks leave to serve a subpoena on Google in order to obtain
the account information including the names and address for
three email addresses, namely:
email@example.com and further seeks account
information and log-in information for the Google Play
developer accounts “Candyapps Studio” and
“Super Fitness App”.
26(d) provides, in part, that “[a] party may not seek
discovery from any source before the parties have conferred
as required by Rule 26(f), except [...] when authorized by
these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). Expedited discovery is appropriate
under Rule 26(d) when good cause for the discovery, in
consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the
prejudice to the responding party. Semitool, Inc. v.
Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D.
Cal. 2002); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Does 1-4, 2006
WL 1343597, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr.19, 2006). “Courts
have recognized that good cause is frequently found in cases
involving claims of infringement and unfair
competition.” Id.; Semitool, Inc.;
Pod-Ners, LLC v. N. Feed & Bean of Lucerne Ltd. Liab.
Co., 204 F.R.D. 675, 676 (D. Colo. 2002).
argues that it meets the four factors to show good cause laid
out in Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com. 185
F.R.D. 573, 587-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999). These factors include
identifying with sufficient specificity defendant(s) as
individuals who can be sued in federal court, recounting all
steps taken to locate and identify defendant(s), showing the
action could survive a motion to dismiss, and justifying the