Stephens v. DOE
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-04183
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Stephens v. Jane Doe, Judge Donato denied without prejudice the temporary restraining order and expedited-discovery requests because Stephens delayed and lacked necessary detail.
P. Bart Stephens's requests for emergency injunctive relief and expedited third-party discovery were denied without prejudice; the unidentified defendants and potential third parties were not ordered to take any action.
What happened
In Stephens v. Jane Doe, P. Bart Stephens alleged that unidentified hackers took over his cellphone service and converted more than $6.3 million in digital assets. He asked the court to immediately restrict movement of those assets and to allow expedited discovery from third parties.
The court denied both requests without prejudice. It found that Stephens waited more than 90 days after learning of the alleged attack without adequately explaining the delay, and that his proposed order did not identify the assets clearly enough. The court also found that he had not adequately identified the third parties or information involved in the requested discovery.
Judge James Donato said Stephens could file revised applications consistent with the order. The court did not rule out possible temporary relief on a more fully developed record.
The detailed version
- Stephens v. DOE · No. 3:23-cv-04183
- James Donato
- Aug. 21, 2023
Background
P. Bart Stephens filed a complaint and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), meaning an emergency order requested without advance notice to the opposing party. He also requested permission to obtain expedited discovery from third parties. Stephens alleged that unidentified malicious hackers impersonated him, caused his cellphone service to be transferred to a SIM card they controlled, and converted more than $6.3 million in his digital assets. He further alleged that the hackers moved some of those assets through an offshore exchange and other wallets.
The court held an ex parte hearing on August 21, 2023, and heard argument from Stephens's counsel.
Temporary restraining order
The court denied the TRO application without prejudice. It explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) requires a showing of immediate and irreparable injury—harm that cannot adequately be repaired later—and specific supporting facts. The court found that Stephens's claim of immediate injury was weakened by his delay. Stephens allegedly learned on May 14, 2023, that his accounts were under attack, but he did not seek a TRO or otherwise come to court until more than three months later. The court found that the record did not adequately explain the delay or show that recent circumstances had suddenly changed in a way that created an immediate risk of irreparable harm.
The court also denied the TRO because Stephens had not provided enough information for an order to identify precisely the acts prohibited or required. His proposed order would have barred the defendants and people acting with them from moving approximately $6.3 million in digital assets. But the court found that the record was nearly silent about Stephens's ownership of the disputed funds and did not provide enough information to tailor an injunction specifically to assets Stephens owned. The court stated that an open-ended prohibition on moving "$6.3 million dollars' worth of digital assets" was insufficient.
The court did not rule out the possibility that temporary relief could be warranted on a more fully developed record if the facts supported it.
Expedited third-party discovery
The court denied the request for expedited discovery without prejudice. It stated that early discovery from third parties might be warranted, but Stephens had not adequately identified the third parties to be served or the information he intended to obtain. The court declined to authorize unrestricted discovery from cryptocurrency exchanges.
Disposition
The TRO application and the request for expedited discovery were both denied without prejudice. The court stated that Stephens could file revised applications consistent with the order. Judge James Donato signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.