Denuvo GmbH v. Voices38

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DENUVO GMBH,
Plaintiff,
v.
VOICES38,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-cv-10423-HSG
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED
DISCOVERY
Re: Dkt. No. 15
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery to serve third-
party subpoenas prior to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference. Dkt. No. 15. The
Court GRANTS the ex parte motion for the reasons below.
Plaintiff does not know the identity of or have contact information for the Defendant and is
therefore unable to properly effect service. Dkt. No. 15-1. In these circumstances, courts have
granted plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct early discovery for the narrowly tailored purpose of
identifying the defendant and determining where they may be served. See e.g., Gillespie v.
Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). Courts generally require the moving party to: “(1)
identify the defendant with enough specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the
defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2) recount the steps taken
to locate the defendant; (3) show that its action could survive a motion to dismiss; and (4) file a
request for discovery with the Court identifying the persons or entities on whom discovery process
might be served and for which there is a reasonable likelihood that the discovery process will lead
to identifying information.” See, e.g., Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-
580 (N.D. Cal. 1999); Alo, LLC v. Fang, No. 25-CV-11126-PHK, 2026 WL 1725893 * 4 (N.D.
Cal. June 15, 2026); Ebates, Inc. v. Does, No. 16-CV-01925-JST, 2016 WL 2344199 * 1 (N.D.
Case 4:26-cv-10423-HSG Document 26 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Cal. May 3, 2016). Ultimately, the decision whether to grant early discovery under Rule 26(d) is
within the Court's discretion. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998).
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause to proceed with early discovery
for the purpose of identifying and serving the Defendant. Plaintiff may serve Discord, Inc., Valve
Corporation, and Reddit, Inc. with the narrowly tailored subpoenas attached to Dkt. No. 25 to
identify the Defendant and effect proper service.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
1 At the Court’s direction, Plaintiff substantially narrowed the scope of its initial requests, and the
Court is satisfied that the revised requests are appropriately tailored to seek only the information
warranted at this preliminary stage. Dkt. Nos. 24, 25.
10/16/2026
Case 4:26-cv-10423-HSG Document 26 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 2