Chenming Holdings Limited v. John Does 1-10

Background

Chenming filed a verified complaint against John Does 1-10, whose identities had not yet been determined. The complaint asserted claims for fraud, fraud in the inducement, conspiracy to defraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment. According to Chenming’s allegations, the defendants and others induced it to enter security-loan transactions, provide stock and cash as collateral, and then refused to return the collateral after Chenming paid all or most of the loan principal and interest. Chenming also alleged that most of the stock collateral was later sold or otherwise disposed of.

Requested Discovery

Chenming asked for permission to conduct expedited discovery before the parties’ required initial discovery conference. It sought to serve subpoenas under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on non-party banks believed to have records identifying the defendants. Chenming argued that the defendants had used shell companies and fictitious names, and that it had been unable to identify them through other efforts, including proceedings in Hong Kong, an investigation by Control Risks, and visits to addresses listed in loan agreements.

Chenming asserted that the proposed discovery was narrowly limited to information needed to identify the defendants, amend the complaint if necessary, and serve them with legal process. The letter also requested an exemption from the court’s pre-motion conference requirement because the defendants had not yet been identified or served.

Ruling

Judge Failla’s order states: “Application GRANTED.” The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket number 6. The short order does not separately describe the scope of the granted application or address each requested form of relief in additional detail.

Disposition

The application was granted. This was an ancillary discovery ruling; the order did not decide whether Chenming would prevail on its underlying claims.