Google LLC v. Khatri

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
SAN JOSE DIVISION
GOOGLE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
MUHAMMAD YASIR KHATRI,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-10907-VKD
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART,
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SERVE THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS
PRIOR TO RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE
Re: Dkt. No. 11
Plaintiff Google LLC (“Google”) seeks leave to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on CCY
Endeavors LLC, doing business as Uncle Marty’s Shipping Office (“Uncle Marty’s”); Stripe, Inc.
(“Stripe”); GoDaddy Inc. (“GoDaddy”); and Domains By Proxy, LLC (“Domains By Proxy”)
(collectively, “non-parties”) prior to a Rule 26(f) conference. Dkt. No. 11. Having considered
Google’s ex parte application, the supporting declaration, and the applicable law, the Court grants
the application, in substantial part.
Google has established that good cause exists to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the non-
parties for the purpose of identifying a physical address at which to serve process on defendant
Muhammad Yasir Khatri. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980); UMG
Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, No. C08-1193 SBA, 2008 WL 4104214, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008)
(“Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the
administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.”). Google has
demonstrated that (1) it can identify the defendant with sufficient specificity such that the Court
can determine that the defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court, (2) it
has identified previous steps taken to locate the defendant, (3) its action against the defendant
Case 5:25-cv-10907-VKD Document 12 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 4

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
could withstand a motion to dismiss, and (4) there is a reasonable likelihood of being able to
identify the defendant through discovery such that service of process would be possible. See
Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Specifically,
Google’s application indicates that Google has unsuccessfully attempted to serve Mr. Khatri at an
address in Ithaca, New York and discovery is needed to identify Mr. Khatri’s current physical
address. Dkt. No. 11 at 4. At this stage of these proceedings, and upon the record presented,
Google properly may serve discovery to ascertain Mr. Khatri’s physical address for service. See
generally Glacier Films (USA), Inc. v. Turchin, 896 F.3d 1033, 1036, 1038 (9th Cir. 2018)
(observing that the district court’s case management order permitting “limited discovery from an
Internet Service Provider to establish a potential infringer’s identity” was “a sensible way to
manage its dockets . . . .”).
Although Google describes its proposed subpoena to Stripe as seeking “[d]ocuments
sufficient to show the addresses and email address associated with Khatri’s account,” Dkt. No. 11
at 10, the proposed subpoena to Stripe is not so limited. See Dkt. No. 11-1, Ex. C. Attachment A
to the subpoena to Stripe includes three requests:
1. Documents sufficient to show all addresses and email addresses
associated with the Account;
2. Documents sufficient to show all bank accounts, credit cards, or
other payment accounts linked to the Account at any time; and
3. Documents sufficient to identify (including by date, amount,
currency, sender or recipient, and any notes or other similar
associated information) all transactions associated with the
Account.
Id. To the extent the subpoena would require Stripe to disclose “all bank accounts, credit cards, or
other payment accounts linked to the Account” or “all transactions associated with the Account,”
it encompasses information beyond Mr. Khatri’s address or location. Id.
The Court understands that Google wishes to obtain information that will permit it to
identify the Doe defendants who worked with or for Mr. Khatri to produce fake reviews. See Dkt.
No. 11 at 5, 9. The second and third document requests in the Stripe subpoena appear to be in
furtherance of that objective. However, the Court is not persuaded that early discovery of this
Case 5:25-cv-10907-VKD Document 12 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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
scope is warranted at this time. Unlike Mr. Khatri, Google provides little information about the
Doe defendants. The pertinent allegations in the complaint are made on information and belief,
and it is not clear Google “can identify [the Doe defendants] with sufficient specificity such that
the Court can determine that [each] defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in
federal court.” See Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578. Moreover, because Google contends
that the Doe defendants work with or for Mr. Khatri, it is possible that discovery of their identities
can be obtained from Mr. Khatri after he is served and appears in the action, and there is
accordingly less justification for obtaining early discovery from third parties on an ex parte basis.
For these reasons, the Court denies Google’s application as to the second and third document
requests in the proposed subpoena to Stripe, without prejudice to renewing the application as to
those requests at a later time if necessary.
Accordingly, the Court grants Google’s application in part and orders as follows:
1. Google may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Uncle Marty’s commanding Uncle Marty’s
to provide Google with the information requested in Attachment A (Dkt. No. 11-1, Ex.
B). Google shall attach a copy of this order to the subpoena.
2. Google may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Stripe commanding Stripe to provide Google
with the information requested in a revised Attachment A that includes only the first
document request. Google shall attach a copy of this order to the subpoena.
3. Google may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on GoDaddy commanding GoDaddy to provide
Google with the information requested in Attachment A (Dkt. No. 11-1, Ex. D).
Google shall attach a copy of this order to the subpoena.
4. Google may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Domains By Proxy commanding Domains
By Proxy to provide Google with the information requested in Attachment A (Dkt. No.
11-1, Ex. E). Google shall attach a copy of this order to the subpoena.
5. The return date on the subpoenas to the non-parties must permit at least 30 days for
the non-parties to respond.
6. The non-parties shall provide a copy of the subpoena and a copy of this order to the
account holder or customer whose information is required to be disclosed within 15
Case 5:25-cv-10907-VKD Document 12 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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
days of the date of service of the subpoena on the non-parties, using any reasonable
means, including written notice sent to the last known address, transmitted either by
first-class mail or via overnight service.
7. Google may only use the information disclosed by the non-parties in response to the
Rule 45 subpoenas for the purpose of identifying Mr. Khatri’s physical address or
location in order to effect service of process in this action.
8. Any affected person may object to the Rule 45 subpoenas, and may also seek a
protective order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2026
Virginia K. DeMarchi
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-10907-VKD Document 12 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 4