Betty's Best, Inc. v. The Facebook Advertisers Listed on Schedule A

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 4, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-04716
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BETTY’S BEST, INC., Case No. 23-cv-04716-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 9 v. TO QUASH

10 THE FACEBOOK ADVERTISERS Re: Dkt. No. 42 LISTED ON SCHEDULE A, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff Betty’s Best, Inc., filed an ex parte motion to enjoin the infringement of Plaintiff’s 14 intellectual property by 592 Facebook Advertisers. (Dkt. No. 16.)1 The Court granted Plaintiff 15 leave to subpoena Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta) for the identifying information of 592 Facebook 16 Advertisers. (Dkt. No. 40.) Before the Court is Certain Defendants’ motion to quash the 17 subpoena. (Dkt. No. 42.) Having carefully considered the briefing, and with the benefit of oral 18 argument on January 4, 2024, the Court DENIES the motion. Certain Defendants fail to 19 demonstrate quashal or modification of Plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoena is required or permissible 20 because Certain Defendants’ identifying information is neither privileged nor commercial 21 information warranting protection, and the subpoena does not pose an undue burden. 22 DISCUSSION 23 The Court granted Plaintiff leave to subpoena Meta for the identifying information of 592 24 Facebook Advertisers, including their names, email addresses, telephone numbers, and physical 25 addresses if available. (Dkt. No. 40 at 1.) Plaintiff contends such identifying information is 26 necessary to serve Defendants. (Dkt. No. 16 at 2, 8, 27-28.) The Court granted each Defendant 30 27 1 days to contest the subpoena. (Dkt. No. 40 at 2.) Certain Defendants move to quash the subpoena 2 on the grounds Plaintiff already has the information necessary to serve Certain Defendants through 3 Betty’s Best, Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on 4 Schedule A, Docket No. 1:23-cv-22322 (S.D. Fla.) (Florida Action). (Dkt. No. 42 at 4 (“Plaintiff 5 has not identified any information sought from this Subpoena regarding Defendants that it does 6 not already have or cannot readily obtain through the Florida Action.”).) 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs discovery of nonparties by subpoena. “The 8 scope of discovery under Rule 45 is the same as under Rule 26(b).” Beaver Cnty. Emps. Ret. 9 Fund v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., No. 16-MC-80062-JSC, 2016 WL 3162218, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 10 June 7, 2016). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), a party may obtain discovery 11 concerning any nonprivileged matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense provided it is

12 proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ 13 relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the 14 burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 15 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Court must quash or modify a subpoena requiring disclosure of 17 privileged or protected matter if no exception or waiver applies, or the subpoena poses an undue 18 burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). The Court may quash or modify a subpoena requiring 19 disclosure of commercial information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(B). 20 Because Certain Defendants do not assert the subpoena requires disclosure of privileged or 21 protected matter or poses an undue burden, Rule 45(d)(3)(A) does not require quashal or 22 modification of the subpoena. Certain Defendants also do not move to quash on the basis the 23 subpoena requires disclosure of commercial information, which would permit quashal or 24 modification under Rule 45(d)(3)(B). Instead, Certain Defendants argue the subpoena should be 25 quashed because it seeks unnecessary information. (Dkt. No. 42 at 5 (“[Certain] Defendants have 26 already identified themselves.”)). 27 Certain Defendants claim Plaintiff already knows their identity and contact information 1 in this action are identified by their Facebook Advertiser accounts, whereas defendants in the 2 Florida Action are identified by their websites. Certain Defendants are 90 Facebook Advertisers 3 corresponding to 85 websites. Of all Certain Defendants now moving to quash the subpoena, only 4 60 are named as corresponding websites in the Florida Action. Betty’s Best, Inc. v. The 5 Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Docket No. 6 1:23-cv-22322 (S.D. Fla.). Thirty Certain Defendants are unnamed in the Florida Action, so the 7 Florida Action provides Plaintiff with no information regarding these 30 Certain Defendants. 8 Only 55 of the 60 Certain Defendants named as corresponding websites in the Florida Action filed 9 corporate disclosure statements, and none of those corporate disclosure statements provide any 10 contact or physical address information. Id. at Dkt. Nos. 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 11 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115. This directly contradicts Certain 12 Defendants’ claim “Plaintiff already knows the identity and contact information regarding 13 Defendants.” (Dkt. No. 42 at 6.) The Florida Action fails to provide information sufficient for 14 Plaintiff to serve Certain Defendants. 15 Moreover, Certain Defendants have not authorized their counsel in the Florida Action to 16 accept service for this action. In essence, Certain Defendants seek to prevent service by 17 suppressing the disclosure of their identifying information. Good cause thus exists to subpoena 18 Meta for the identifying information of Certain Defendants so Plaintiff may initiate service. See 19 UMG Recording, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 4104214, *4 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Arista Records LLC v. 20 Does 1-19, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6–7 (D.D.C. 2008) (applying a “good cause” standard to permit 21 expedited discovery). 22 Certain Defendants fail to demonstrate quashal or modification of Plaintiff’s Rule 45 23 subpoena is required or permissible because Certain Defendants’ identifying information is neither 24 privileged nor commercial information warranting protection, and the subpoena does not pose an 25 undue burden. 26 // 27 // 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, Certain Defendants’ motion is DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: January 4, 2024 5 6 ne AQQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28