Denuvo GmbH v. Voices38

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DENUVO GMBH,
Plaintiff,
v.
VOICES38,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-cv-10423-HSG
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
E-FILE PROPOSED ORDER AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Re: Dkt. No. 15
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery seeking
“narrowly tailored subpoenas” on various non-parties for the purpose of obtaining the identity and
contact information of the Defendant. Dkt. No. 15.
Plaintiff submitted their Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery without the required
proposed order. Civil L.R. 7-2(c). Therefore, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to e-file a proposed
order granting the Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery. Plaintiff shall also submit a
proposed order, in Word format, by email to HSG@cand.uscourts.gov, as required by the Court’s
standing orders. Civil Standing Order ¶ 24, H. S. Gilliam, Jr., U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Cal. (July 9,
2024) https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/hsg/gilliam-jr-haywood-s. Plaintiff is reminded to adhere
to the Court’s standing orders throughout the remainder of the litigation.
Plaintiff is further ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why it requires the voluminous data
contained in its requests for production to accomplish the narrow preliminary purposes of
identifying and serving the Defendant. Dkt. No. 15-1. Courts may permit “limited discovery”
after filing of the complaint to “permit the plaintiff to learn the identifying facts necessary to
permit service on the defendant.” Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D.
Cal. 1999). Plaintiff’s requests for production go well beyond what is needed for the limited
purpose of identifying the defendant and could pose substantial privacy concerns. See Ebates, Inc.
Case 4:26-cv-10423-HSG Document 24 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
v. Does, No. 16-CV-01925-JST, 2016 WL 2344199 at * 3 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2016).
Plaintiff is DIRECTED to either file revised subpoenas with a request for production that
aligns with the narrowly-tailored subpoena in Alo, LLC v. Fang, or justify in detail why each
request is properly targeted to the permissible purposes of early discovery. Exhibit D at 16, Alo,
LLC v. Fang, No. 25-CV-11126-PHK, 2026 WL 1725893 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2026) ECF No. 16-
2. Plaintiff shall file either the revised subpoenas or a statement of 5 pages or less explaining the
justification for each document request by October 14, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
10/8/2026
Case 4:26-cv-10423-HSG Document 24 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 2