Samuel Patrick Wolanyk v. John Does 1-15

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon addresses a self-represented plaintiff’s requests for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, expedited discovery, and sealing or redaction of filings in an action concerning an alleged cryptocurrency theft. The court finds that an ex parte temporary restraining order is procedurally justified, concludes that plaintiff has shown likely success on a conversion claim and a risk of irreparable asset dissipation, declines to require a bond, and allows expedited discovery in part to identify Doe defendants. The court also grants the motion to seal, while reserving or denying portions of the requested relief as described in the opinion.

Holdings

1. An ex parte TRO may issue where the defendants' identities are unknown and the record clearly shows that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before defendants can be heard; plaintiff's verified declaration sufficiently certified the efforts made to provide notice and why notice should not be required.
2. Plaintiff established entitlement to a temporary freeze of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency traceable to the stolen Bitcoin.
3. A court may freeze assets before judgment when the plaintiff seeks equitable relief and the requirements for temporary restraining relief are satisfied.
4. Good cause supported expedited third-party discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference, but only for obtaining the Doe defendants' basic identifying information.
5. Compelling reasons justified redacting plaintiff's personal identifying and security-related information and filing specified materials under seal, provided appropriately redacted public copies were filed.
6. The court declined to require plaintiff to post a bond under Rule 65(c).

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff satisfied the procedural requirements for an ex parte temporary restraining order against unidentified defendants.
2. Whether plaintiff established the Winter factors, or alternatively the Ninth Circuit serious-questions standard, for a temporary asset freeze.
3. Whether the court had authority to freeze defendants' assets before judgment based on plaintiff's request for equitable relief.
4. Whether plaintiff showed good cause for expedited third-party discovery to identify the Doe defendants.
5. Whether the requested expedited discovery was sufficiently tailored to identifying the defendants.
6. Whether compelling reasons justified redacting plaintiff's personal identifying and security-related information and filing materials under seal.
7. Whether plaintiff should be required to post a bond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).

Disposition

other