SingularDTV GmbH v. Doe

Background

SingularDTV GmbH sued John Doe under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. It also asserted common-law claims for conversion, fraud in the inducement, and unjust enrichment. SingularDTV alleged that someone impersonated shareholder Arie Levy-Cohen through a fraudulent email address and directed a cryptocurrency settlement payment worth about $2 million to Doe’s cryptocurrency wallet.

The court had previously allowed expedited discovery, meaning discovery before the usual schedule, to help SingularDTV identify Doe. SingularDTV served subpoenas on Google LLC and Binance Holdings Limited. Google produced information about the unknown email-account holder, including an internet-protocol address and a recovery telephone number. SingularDTV later sought subpoenas concerning the alleged hacking investigation from Kobre & Kim LLP and AlixPartners LLP. It also sought permission to subpoena its shareholder Joseph Lubin instead of obtaining documents from another representative located in Switzerland.

Court’s reasoning

The court applied a flexible standard requiring reasonableness and good cause for expedited discovery. In cases involving an unidentified defendant, courts generally allow discovery when the plaintiff has stated a plausible initial claim and cannot identify the defendant without a court-ordered subpoena. The discovery must ordinarily seek no more information than necessary to identify and serve the defendant.

The court agreed with Kobre & Kim that the subpoenas were too broad. The Kobre & Kim subpoena sought fourteen categories of documents concerning any computer-related incident, including communications with SingularDTV, internal investigation communications, and the identities of people involved in reviewing or analyzing investigative materials. The court found that the subpoena’s definitions made the requests almost unlimited. The AlixPartners subpoena was more focused on the alleged hack but still broadly sought materials provided to AlixPartners, materials it collected or created, and communications with SingularDTV.

The court also found that SingularDTV had not shown that these subpoenas were necessary to identify Doe. SingularDTV already had information from Google, was communicating with Binance, and had access to Kevin Madura’s publicly available declaration and analysis. Although that declaration identified a possible suspect, SingularDTV did not explain what efforts it had made to investigate that lead or use the information already available. The court therefore found that SingularDTV’s assertion that the subpoenas were necessary was conclusory and did not establish good cause.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni granted Kobre & Kim’s and AlixPartners’ motions to quash the third-party subpoenas. She denied SingularDTV’s request for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Lubin. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions at Docket Numbers 59 and 69 and ordered SingularDTV to submit a detailed status report by November 15, 2022, describing efforts to identify Doe beyond serving the three subpoenas. The court declined to award attorneys’ fees at that time.