Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied without prejudice Plaintiff Jimmy Ramirez’s motion to enlarge an earlier order authorizing expedited discovery. The court held that the requested discovery, including a vendor’s identity and the defendant’s government-issued identification or social security number, was not narrowly tailored to identify the defendant for service of process. The court found no good cause for expanding the existing expedited-discovery authorization.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff established good cause to enlarge the prior expedited-discovery order to permit subpoenas seeking the identity of Apple's identity-verification vendor and Tanaydin's government-issued identification number.
- Whether expedited discovery seeking a social security number or comparable government identification number was narrowly tailored and necessary to effect service of process or verify information already produced.
Holdings
- Plaintiff failed to establish good cause for enlarging the prior expedited-discovery order because he did not explain why Apple's identifying information was insufficient or why additional government-identification information was necessary.
- The requested subpoenas were improper because one sought a vendor's identity solely to facilitate a second subpoena seeking Tanaydin's social security number, and the requested social security number was not shown to be necessary to serve process.
Key quotations
“The decisions allowing expedited discovery in cryptocurrency theft cases limit discovery to identifying information (name, physical and email address, and telephone number) so that the plaintiff may ascertain whom to serve process; social security numbers were not shown to be necessary to achieve that purpose.”
“In other words, there is no good cause for the enlargement Plaintiff seeks.”
Factual background
Plaintiff alleges that unidentified defendants stole his Bitcoin through a copycat Sparrow Multi-Sig application downloaded from the Apple App Store. The court had authorized limited expedited discovery from Apple to identify Defendant 1, allegedly the application's developer, for purposes of service of process. Apple supplied identifying information for Durmaz Tanaydin, but Plaintiff sought additional discovery to obtain and verify Tanaydin's government-issued identification number.
Procedural history
The court previously authorized expedited discovery from Apple to obtain identifying information for the unidentified defendant so that Plaintiff could effect service of process. Apple produced the defendant's name, physical and email address, and telephone number. Plaintiff then sought subpoenas for the identity of Apple's identity-verification vendor and for the defendant's government-issued identification, described by Apple's policy as a government identification number. The court denied the motion without prejudice.