Gladwin v. Doe

Background

Andrew Gladwin alleges that John Doe purchased instructional materials related to stage magic from him, then wrongfully copied and resold them. Gladwin brings claims for fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment under California law. He seeks to identify Doe by serving an early subpoena on Comcast for information about the subscriber assigned to the internet address 98.45.178.220.

The court also addressed an earlier issue concerning Gladwin’s attorney, Adam H. Rose, who was not previously a member of the court’s bar. Gladwin retained local counsel, and the court granted Rose permission to appear in the case. The court discharged its earlier order requiring Gladwin to explain why Rose should not be disqualified.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Gladwin invokes diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, asserting that the parties are residents of different states and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The court noted that Gladwin’s amended complaint does not explain how he calculated that amount. The materials attached to the complaint list prices ranging from $1.99 to $65.00, which, in the court’s view, suggest that the case would need to involve a very high volume of sales or another basis for damages to meet the jurisdictional threshold.

Because federal courts must independently determine whether they have subject-matter jurisdiction, the court ordered Gladwin to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court also stated that the subpoena motion could not be granted if the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Request for an Early Subpoena

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 generally restricts discovery before the parties hold their required discovery conference. A court may allow early discovery to identify an unknown defendant if the requesting party shows good cause, meaning a sufficient factual and legal basis for the request.

The court identified several deficiencies in Gladwin’s amended motion. The exhibits were not supported by a declaration from someone with personal knowledge. The exhibits showed only that the internet address was used to purchase products from Gladwin, not that it was connected to the allegedly wrongful resale. Gladwin also had not provided evidence explaining how he determined that the internet address belonged to a Comcast subscriber or that the subscriber was likely located in the Northern District of California. Finally, he had not provided the proposed subpoena, making it difficult for the court to evaluate the requested disclosure, possible burdens on Comcast, and the subscriber’s privacy interests.

The court therefore ordered Gladwin to show cause why his amended motion for leave to serve the subpoena should not be denied. The court stated that, if Gladwin establishes subject-matter jurisdiction, it is open to authorizing a subpoena but would require a more thorough showing that the requested information is relevant.

Request to Keep the Subpoena Secret

Gladwin also requests an order preventing Comcast from telling the subscriber that the subpoena exists. The court found that the authorities Gladwin cited did not support that request. The court explained that its usual practice in similar cases is to allow, and require, the internet service provider to disclose the subpoena to the subscriber and to give the subscriber an opportunity to ask the court to quash it.

The court ordered Gladwin to show cause why that approach should not be used here. If he continues to seek nondisclosure, he must identify legal authority supporting the request.

Disposition

Judge J. Cisneros did not dismiss the case or deny the subpoena motion in this order. Instead, the court ordered Gladwin to file a response by May 22, 2025, explaining why the case should not be dismissed and why the motion for an early subpoena, including the nondisclosure request, should not be denied.