Centre Way Company Limited v. Fuzhou Puhua Minghui Trading Co. Ltd.
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:20-cv-01377
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Centre Way v. Fuzhou, Judge Van Keulen denied Centre Way’s request for early discovery to identify a defendant for service.
Centre Way Company Limited’s request for early discovery from Amazon.com, Inc. was denied without prejudice, and the scheduled case-management conference was vacated because no defendant had appeared.
What happened
Centre Way Company Limited asked the court to issue a subpoena to Amazon.com, Inc. before the parties’ required discovery-planning conference. Centre Way sought information about the address and service agent for Defendant Antomove.
The court explained that early discovery before serving a defendant is allowed only in rare cases. It applied a four-part test requiring, among other things, enough information to show that the defendant is a suable person or entity and a reasonable likelihood that the requested discovery would identify the defendant.
Judge Susan Van Keulen ruled that Centre Way had not satisfied any of the requirements. The court denied the subpoena request without prejudice and vacated the scheduled case-management conference because no defendant had appeared.
The detailed version
- Centre Way Company Limited v. Fuzhou Puhua Minghui Trading Co. Ltd. · No. 5:20-cv-01377
- Susan Van Keulen
- May 18, 2020
Background
Centre Way Company Limited filed an ex parte motion asking for a subpoena duces tecum, meaning a subpoena requiring production of documents or information, before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Centre Way sought early discovery from Amazon.com, Inc. to determine the address and agent for service of process for Defendant Antomove.
Legal standard
The court stated that discovery generally occurs only after a defendant has been served. Courts may make a limited exception after a complaint is filed when discovery is needed to learn identifying information necessary to serve the defendant. The court applied a four-part test developed in the Northern District of California. The visible portion of the opinion states that the moving party must identify the defendant with enough specificity for the court to determine whether the defendant is a real person or entity who could survive a motion to dismiss, and must identify the persons or entities to whom discovery would be directed while showing a reasonable likelihood that the discovery will produce identifying information.
Ruling
The court concluded that Centre Way had failed to satisfy any of the test’s requirements. It therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Centre Way’s motion for issuance of a subpoena to Amazon.com, Inc. The court also vacated the May 26, 2020 case-management conference because neither defendant had appeared.
Effect
The opinion resolves only the request for early discovery and the scheduled conference. It does not decide the underlying claims. The denial was without prejudice, as stated by the court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.