Y.S. v. John Doe

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS
Y.S.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHRYN A. STARNELLA
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Expedited
Discovery [#46] (the “Motion”). The Motion [#46] has been referred to the undersigned.
See Order Referring Motion [#47]. The Court has reviewed the Motion [#46], the entire
case file, and the applicable law. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part
and DENIES in part the Motion [#46].
I. 	Background
This is a cryptocurrency theft case where defendants’ identities remain unknown.
Plaintiff requests expedited discovery to issue subpoenas on certain nonparties to
uncover the defendants’ identities. See Motion [#46]. Plaintiff previously filed a series of
Motions [#3, #10, #12] and Supplements [#21, #24, #40] requesting this same relief.
However, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s prior requests because he failed
to demonstrate that his proposed subpoenas were narrowly tailored and further failed to
explain why certain nonparties possessed the relevant identifying information. See Order
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 48 filed 11/25/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 8

2
[#45]. The Court instructed Plaintiff that, should he continue to seek early discovery, he
may file a single, amended motion for expedited discovery. Id. at 14. The Court further
instructed Plaintiff that if he chose to file an amended motion he must: (1) narrowly tailor
his request for only the information needed to uncover the defendants’ identities and (2)
identify no more than three third parties that he wishes to serve, and explain why those
third parties are likely to possess the relevant information. Id. Plaintiff took the Court up
on its invitation and filed the instant Motion [#46].
II. 	Applicable Law
Generally, formal discovery is not permitted until the parties have conferred
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). See FED. R. CIV . P. 26(d)(1) (“A party may not seek discovery
from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a
proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized
by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.”). However, a court may exercise
discretion to “alter the timing, sequence, and volume of discovery.” See Qwest Commc’ns
Int’l, Inc. v. WorldQuest Networks, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418, 419 (D. Colo. 2003).
In this District, courts have permitted expedited discovery upon a showing of good
cause. See, 	e.g., SEBO 	Am., 	LLC 	v. 	Does, 	No. 	21-cv-02865-RM-STV, 	2021 	WL
5167196, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 29, 2021) (citing Pod-Ners v. N. Feed & Bean of Lucerne
Ltd., 204 F.R.D. 675, 676 (D. Colo. 2002)); Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Colo. Members
of Swarm, No. 11-cv-01170-WJM-KMT, 2011 WL 1812554, at *1 (D. Colo. May 12,
2011) (citing same). “Good cause may exist where the plaintiff seeks a preliminary
injunction, where the moving party has asserted claims of infringement or unfair
competition, or ‘where physical evidence may be consumed or destroyed with the
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 48 filed 11/25/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 8

3
passage of time, thereby disadvantaging one or more parties to the litigation.’” SEBO
Am., LLC, 2021 WL 5167196, at *1 (quoting Qwest Commc’ns, 213 F.R.D. at 419).
However, “[i]n applying the ‘good cause’ standard under Rule 26(d), the court should
consider the scope of the requested discovery.” Qwest Commc’ns, 213 F.R.D. at 420.
A plaintiff’s inability to identify a defendant is “one of the few reasons that early
discovery is generally permitted.” Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned
IP Address 174.51.234.104, No. 13-cv-00307-WYD-MEH, 2013 WL 3753436, at *4 (D.
Colo. July 14, 2013) (citing 20/20 Fin. Consulting, Inc. v. Does 1-5, No. 10-cv-01006-
CMA-KMT, 2010 WL 1904530, at *1 (D. Colo. May 11, 2010)). In those situations, “the
plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown
defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the
complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” 20/20 Fin. Consulting, 2010 WL
1904530, at *1.
III. 	Analysis
The Court previously determined that Plaintiff’s inability to identify the defendants
presents good cause to engage in early discovery. See Order [#45] at 5. However, the
Court noted certain issues regarding the scope of Plaintiff’s requested relief. First, the
Court recognized that Plaintiff’s request to subpoena thirteen third parties was excessive
and repetitive, and that he ultimately failed to explain why any of those third parties would
possess the relevant identifying information. Id. at 6. Second, the Court explained that the
information Plaintiff sought far exceeded the information necessary to uncover the
defendants’ identities. Id. at 6-7.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 48 filed 11/25/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 8

4
In the Motion [#46], Plaintiff narrows the number of third parties he wishes to serve.
Plaintiff identifies three third parties in his Motion [#46]: Coinbase, Inc. (“Coinbase”), Foris
DAX, Inc. (“Foris”),1 and BAM Trading Services Inc. (Binance.US) (“Binance”). Motion
[#46] at 2-4. This is consistent with the Court’s prior Order [#45] directing Plaintiff to
identify no more than three third parties. Id. at 7, 14. In addition, the Court ordered Plaintiff
to explain why each third party is likely to possess the information he needs. Id. Plaintiff
asserts that Coinbase is likely to possess the relevant information because the stolen
bitcoin originated from Plaintiff’s Coinbase account. Id. at 3. As a result, Coinbase is likely
to possess information regarding where the funds were sent and what account received
them. Id. Plaintiff next asserts that Foris is the “technical gateway through which the fraud
was executed.” Id. He claims that Foris will possess information such as IP address logs
and session identifiers, among other things, which document how the defendants
interacted with Plaintiff’s device and wallet. Id. Finally, Plaintiff wishes to serve Binance.
Id. at 4. Plaintiff argues that blockchain tracing demonstrates that the stolen funds
ultimately reached a custodial address controlled by Binance, which requires users to
provide identification information. Id. As a result, Binance “provides the real-world identity”
of the recipient of the stolen funds and is the entity “most likely to possess the information
needed to identify” the defendants. Id. The Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately
explained 	why 	these three 	third 	parties are 	likely 	to 	possess relevant 	identifying
information.
Next, the Court required Plaintiff to narrowly tailor his request to only information
needed to identify the defendants. Order [#45] at 7, 14. The Court previously noted that
1 Plaintiff contends that Foris is the designated U.S. legal process recipient for Onchain Wallet
Limited, which is incorporated offshore. Motion [#46] at 3-4.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 48 filed 11/25/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 8

5
Plaintiff’s requested information was far too broad, and much of that information could be
obtained through the ordinary course of discovery. Id. at 7. In his Motion [#46], Plaintiff
first requests the subscriber or account holder information, including names, mailing
addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, date of account creation, and “any KYC-
verification identifiers such as the type of government ID provided[.]” Motion [#46] at 5.
However, Plaintiff goes on to request information that, once more, appears
unnecessary at this stage. For instance, he requests information such as device
fingerprints, timestamped session logs, and “authentication records showing when and
how the account was accessed[.]” Id. Moreover, he requests deposit logs, internal ledger
entries, and certain metadata, which he believes is necessary to uncover the defendants’
identities. Id. Once again, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s requested information is too broad
and exceeds the scope of information necessary for the sole purpose of identifying the
defendants. See Qwest, 213 F.R.D. at 420 (denying expedited discovery request as
overly broad).
The Court understands that Plaintiff is demonstrating best efforts to comply with
the Court’s prior Order [#45]. To prevent further delay of his case, the Court will allow
Plaintiff to serve the nonparty subpoenas on Coinbase, Binance, and Foris, but will limit
the information he is permitted to request to include only the defendants’ names, current
and permanent addresses, billing addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses,
and IP addresses. This information is consistent with what other courts in this District
have permitted under similar circumstances. See, e.g., Trainor v. Doe, No. 22-cv-00350-
RM-NYW, 2022 WL 444396, at *3 (D. Colo. Feb. 14, 2022).
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 48 filed 11/25/25 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 8

6
The Eastern District of Wisconsin took a similar approach in Wuluvarana v. Does,
No. 22-cv-982-pp, 2023 WL 183874, at *4 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 13, 2023). Wuluvarana involved
an identical cryptocurrency theft scenario where the defendants’ identities were unknown.
Id. at *1. The plaintiff sought to serve early discovery on certain third parties, including
Binance and Coinbase. Id. at *1-2. Along with requesting certain identifying information,
the plaintiff also requested each third party’s internal documents regarding the at-issue
accounts, among other things. Id. at *4. While the court found good cause for expedited
discovery, it noted the scope of the requested discovery was unnecessary. Id. Ultimately,
the court limited the information sought to the “name, street address, telephone number
and e-mail address of each John Doe.” Id. at *5. Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate
to limit Plaintiff’s requested discovery, as explained above.
Finally, Plaintiff again requests the Court enter a nondisclosure order prohibiting
the subpoenaed third parties from disclosing the existence of Plaintiff’s forthcoming
subpoenas. Motion [#46] at 6. For the reasons explained in the Court’s prior Order [#45],
and to allow the defendants to avail themselves of the protections afforded by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B), the Court will not allow this. See Order [#45] at 11-
12.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons expressed above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#46] is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part. The court GRANTS the Motion [#46] to the extent that the Court will allow Plaintiff
to issue subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 to Coinbase, Binance and Foris for the sole
purpose of obtaining information to identify the unknown defendants. This information
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 48 filed 11/25/25 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 8

7
consists of only the names, current and permanent addresses, billing addresses,
telephone numbers, email addresses, and IP addresses associated with each unknown
defendant. 	A 	copy 	of 	this 	Order 	must 	be 	attached 	to 	each 	subpoena. 	The
court DENIES the Motion [#46] to the extent that it asks for information beyond what the
Court has identified above and to the extent it requests Coinbase, Binance, and Foris not
disclose the subpoenas to the defendants.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may serve his third-party subpoenas on
Coinbase, Binance, and Foris no later than December 31, 2025.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Coinbase, Binance and Foris must provide a
copy of the subpoena to each defendant and any other affected user as soon as possible
after service of the subpoena. Coinbase, Binance and Foris and any affected user must
have 	14 	days 	from 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the subpoena to 	object 	to
the subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B). Coinbase, Binance and
Foris must not disclose any defendants’ identifying information, or such information for
any other affected user, during that 14-day period (or if a timely objection is served, unless
and until the court so orders). If an objection is served, Coinbase, Binance and Foris must
preserve any material responsive to the subpoena for a period of no less than 90 days to
allow Plaintiff to file a motion to compel, if he so desires.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed
in response to the subpoenas for the purpose of enforcing his rights as asserted in his
First Amended Complaint [#36]. Improper use of the information obtained in response to
the subpoenas may result in sanctions.
Dated: November 25, 2025 	BY THE COURT:
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 48 filed 11/25/25 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 8

8
Kathryn A. Starnella
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 48 filed 11/25/25 USDC Colorado
pg 8 of 8