Bobby D. Gray III v. John Doe Telemarketer(s)

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-08380
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 BOBBY D. GRAY III, Case No. 25-cv-08380-TSH

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 10 v. EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

11 JOHN DOE TELEMARKETER(S), Re: Dkt. No. 3 12 Defendant.

13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Plaintiff Bobby Gray III brings this action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 16 of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, seeking damages for unwanted calls from telemarketers. 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Discovery to serve third-party 18 subpoenas on telecommunications providers Inteliquent, Lumen Technologies, and AT&T to 19 discover the telemarketers’ identities. ECF Nos. 3 (Motion), 11 (Proposed Subpoenas). Good 20 cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 On September 16, 2025, Plaintiff received an unsolicited call to his phone displaying caller 23 ID 415-513-0735. Compl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 1. The call began with a human-sounding “Hello?” then 24 switched to a prerecorded Medicare marketing message. Id. When Plaintiff asked who was 25 calling, the agent identified “Atlas Health & Wellness, Detroit, Michigan.” Id. When Plaintiff 26 requested a physical address, the caller disconnected. Id. 27 On September 17, 2025, Plaintiff received an unsolicited call displaying caller ID 415-481- 1 was calling, the agent identified “Nova Healthcare, Miami, Florida.” Id. When Plaintiff requested 2 an address, the caller disconnected. Id. 3 Plaintiff filed this case on October 1, 2025, alleging two claims under the TCPA against 4 John Doe Telemarketers. He seeks statutory damages of $500 per call, trebled to $1,500 per call 5 for willful/knowing violations, and injunctive relief prohibiting further calls. Id. at 4. Plaintiff 6 filed the present motion on the same day. He argues “Defendants concealed their identities, 7 refused to provide valid addresses, and manipulated caller ID,” and he is therefore unable to serve 8 the summons and complaint without third party discovery to discover their identities. Mot. at 1-2. 9 III. LEGAL STANDARD 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) states, “A party may not seek discovery from any 11 source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding 12 exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by 13 stipulation, or by court order.” Here, no Rule 26(a)(1) (B) exception or rule applies, nor can 14 Plaintiff obtain a stipulation from unknown defendants. Thus, he may only use expedited 15 discovery by court order. 16 A court may authorize early discovery for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in 17 the interests of justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Generally, courts within the Ninth Circuit consider 18 whether a plaintiff has shown “good cause” for early discovery. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo 19 Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-77 (N.D. Cal. 2002); Donaldson v. Garland, 2022 WL 20 17252701, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2022) (collecting cases). “Good cause may be found where 21 the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the 22 prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276. 23 “In evaluating whether a plaintiff establishes good cause to learn the identity of Doe 24 defendants through early discovery, courts examine whether the plaintiff (1) identifies the Doe 25 defendant with sufficient specificity that the Court can determine that the defendant is a real 26 person who can be sued in federal court, (2) recounts the steps taken to locate and identify the 27 defendant, (3) demonstrates that the action can withstand a motion to dismiss, and (4) proves that 1 Donaldson, 2022 WL 17252701, at *1 (quoting ZG TOP Tech. v. Doe, 2019 WL 917418 at *2 2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2019)). “Where the true identity of a defendant is not known, “‘the plaintiff 3 should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is 4 clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on 5 other grounds.’” Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Gillespie 6 v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). 7 IV. ANALYSIS 8 Plaintiff has identified the telephone number from which Defendants called, but he is 9 unable to obtain Defendants’ names and addresses because he has no relationship with Defendants 10 and was unable to obtain their information on the phone. Compl. ¶¶ 8-10. Plaintiff has also 11 shown he can only obtain this information through subpoenas to the carriers responsible for the 12 telephone numbers 415-513-0735 and 415-481-0205. Mot. at 3. He seeks only subscriber 13 information sufficient to identify the person(s) or entity(ies) who placed the calls. Id. Courts 14 routinely allow expedited discovery for good cause such as determining a defendant’s identity and 15 address. See, e.g., Donaldson, 2022 WL 17252701, at *2; UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 16 WL 4104214, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008). 17 Finally, Plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie claim for violations of the TCPA. The 18 TCPA generally prohibits the use of an Automated Telephone Dialing System, except for 19 emergency purposes or with the prior express consent of the called party. 47 U.S.C. § 20 227(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated the TCPA by calling his phone without prior 21 express consent and using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver telemarketing messages. 22 Compl. ¶ 14. The TCPA provides a private cause of action for violations of the Act. 47 U.S.C. § 23 227(b)(3). 24 Accordingly, the Court finds good cause exists to permit Plaintiff to propound early 25 limited discovery to determine Defendants’ identities and addresses for service. 26 V. CONCLUSION 27 Based on the analysis above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff may serve 1 addresses of Defendants. Plaintiff shall attach a copy of this order to the subpoenas. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 Dated: October 29, 2025 5 TAA. | THOMAS S. HIXSON 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

15 16

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