Dyer v. DOES 1-10
- Joseph Spero
- 3:23-cv-01226
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Min Ji Goo Ji Goo Dyer v. John Does 1-10, Judge Spero allowed subpoenas to identify accounts allegedly involved in a fraud scheme.
The order affects the plaintiff, the Doe defendants, Binance and Bitcoin.com, any related entities served with subpoenas, and people or entities whose identifying information is sought.
What happened
In Min Ji Goo Ji Goo Dyer v. John Does 1-10, the plaintiff, representing herself, asked to serve subpoenas before the parties held their required initial conference. She sought information from Binance and Bitcoin.com about accounts where she said the Doe defendants directed her to deposit money as part of an alleged fraudulent scheme.
The court found that she had shown good cause to seek identifying information for two specific accounts associated with Ben or Benjamin Barnes. The court authorized subpoenas seeking information such as names, addresses, identification documents, telephone numbers, email addresses, account records, and related compliance information.
Judge Spero also set procedures for notice, objections, preservation of information, and limited use of any information produced. The order granted the application for permission to serve the third-party subpoenas; it did not decide the underlying fraud claims.
The detailed version
- Dyer v. DOES 1-10 · No. 3:23-cv-01226
- Joseph Spero
- Dec. 18, 2024
Background
The plaintiff, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed an application asking for permission to serve third-party subpoenas before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). She sought information from Binance and Bitcoin.com to identify accounts to which she allegedly deposited money at the request of the Doe defendants. She described the payments as part of a fraudulent scheme.
The plaintiff provided evidence of deposits involving two accounts associated with the name Ben or Benjamin Barnes: one Binance account, number 16YxZuyvPdWYazskdldvxDC7EvLYt3BCEp, and one Bitcoin.com account, number 1JGRZXAghnhi1eFcrCf7S8CckfLuEQjzhH. The court noted that she had not provided evidence connecting the alleged fraud to a different Bitcoin.com account listed initially in her proposed order.
Ruling
The court found that the plaintiff had established good cause to serve subpoenas on Binance and Bitcoin.com. It authorized her to issue subpoenas under Rule 45 seeking identifying information for the two specified accounts. The authorized information included legal names, authorized users, beneficiaries, internet-service-provider addresses, proof of identification, two-factor-identification methods, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, telephone numbers, email addresses, residential or mailing addresses, account-opening and account-closing documents, and know-your-customer and anti-money-laundering information.
The order also allowed subpoenas to corporate parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates of Binance or Bitcoin.com if necessary to carry out the order, including when one of those companies identified a related entity as possessing the requested information.
Procedures and limits
Within 30 days after being served, Binance and Bitcoin.com were ordered to give any person or entity whose identifying information was sought a copy of the subpoena and the order. Each such person or entity would have 30 days after service to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash. If no timely motion to quash was filed, the relevant company would have 10 days to produce responsive information or file its own motion to quash. Binance and Bitcoin.com were required to preserve the subpoenaed information while any timely motion to quash was resolved.
The plaintiff could use information disclosed under the authorized subpoenas only to protect her rights concerning the claims in her complaint. She also was required to serve the subpoenas and a copy of the order in the manner required by Rule 45(b). The court granted the application for leave to serve the third-party subpoenas. The opinion did not resolve the merits of the alleged fraudulent scheme or the plaintiff’s underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.