Hassan Abpikar v. Beatriz Thomas, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 HASSAN ABPIKAR, Case No. 25-cv-02226-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 10 v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT LIMITED 11 BEATRIZ THOMAS, et al., EARLY DISCOVERY 12 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 36

13 14 Plaintiff Hassan Abpikar, who is representing himself, moves for leave to conduct limited 15 early discovery to obtain the addresses of defendants Patricia and George Sandoval so that he may 16 serve them with process. Dkt. No. 36. Defendants Beatriz Thomas and Sara Scott (“DMV 17 defendants”), who have appeared in the action, have not opposed or otherwise responded to the 18 motion, although they were given the opportunity to do so. See Dkt. No. 39. The Court finds this 19 motion suitable for resolution without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 20 For the reasons explained below, the Court denies the motion for leave, without prejudice. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 In his first amended complaint (“FAC”), Mr. Abpikar alleges a conspiracy between the 23 DMV defendants, five other unknown DMV officers, and the Sandovals to steal Mr. Abpikar’s 24 possessions, track his location, search his phone, and provide false information that led to his 25 arrest. See generally Dkt. No. 25. The FAC asserts ten claims against the Sandovals, including 26 claims for assault, battery, conversion, theft, negligence, and conspiracy. Id. (claims 2, 5, 7-14). 27 The record reflects that Mr. Abpikar is currently a defendant in a criminal case filed 1 Hassan Abpikar, Case No. C2305851 (docket sheet accessible at 2 https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/online-services/case-information-online). See Dkt. No. 25 ¶¶ 35, 3 69; Dkt. No. 36 at 2; Dkt. No. 36-1 ¶ 4. It is unclear whether the Sandovals are witnesses or 4 victims in that case. See id.; Dkt. No. 28-1 at ECF 11, 23. 5 In his motion for leave, Mr. Abpikar states that he has been unable to obtain the 6 Sandovals’ addresses, which he requires in order to serve them with the operative complaint and 7 summons. Dkt. No. 36 at 2, 3. He attests that he has asked a process server to locate their 8 addresses, but the process server has been unable to do so. Dkt. No. 36-1 ¶¶ 2-3. He further 9 attests that the addresses are known to the prosecutor who is prosecuting the criminal case against 10 Mr. Abpikar, but that the prosecutor has refused to provide the addresses to Mr. Abpikar. Id. ¶ 4. 11 Mr. Abpikar seeks leave to serve “limited subpoenas on [the] San Jose Police Department, 12 requesting [1] Property intake / evidence logs; [2] Chain-of-custody records; [3] Incident reports 13 [a]nd [4] Records identifying the individuals who surrendered Plaintiff's iPhone(s).” Dkt. No. 36 14 at 4. In the alternative, Mr. Abpikar seeks leave to serve “targeted interrogatories on . . . 15 Defendant DMV officers Beatriz Thomas and Sara Scott, limited to [1] Identification of the 16 civilian Defendants; [2] Last known addresses for service.” Id. 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 Generally, a party may not obtain discovery “from any source” before conducting a Rule 19 26(f) conference, let alone before service of the summons and complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) 20 (“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by 21 Rule 26(f), except . . . when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.”); 22 Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999). However, as Mr. 23 Abpikar argues, where a party demonstrates good cause, a court may order early discovery. See, 24 e.g., Distinct Media Ltd. v. Doe Defendants 1-50, No. 15-cv-03312 NC, 2015 WL 13389609, at *2 25 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2015). In particular, where a plaintiff requires discovery in order to identify 26 unknown defendants, early discovery may be appropriate. See id.; Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 27 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[S]ituations arise . . . where the identity of alleged defendants will not 1 an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that 2 discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other 3 grounds.”); see also Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999). 4 Here, Mr. Abpikar does not require discovery to identify the Sandovals—they are already 5 named as defendants in the FAC. He requires discovery only of their addresses for purposes of 6 service of process. 7 In evaluating whether a plaintiff establishes good cause for expedited discovery of 8 defendants’ identities, courts in the Ninth Circuit consider whether the plaintiff: (1) has identified 9 the missing defendant with sufficient specificity such that the court can determine that the 10 defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court, (2) has described the 11 previous steps taken to locate the missing defendant, (3) established that the action can withstand a 12 motion to dismiss, and (4) demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that discovery will yield 13 identifying information about the defendant that would make service of process possible. See 14 Bungie, Inc. v. Thorpe, No. 21-cv-05677-EMC (DMR), 2021 WL 5178825, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15 8, 2021) (collecting cases); Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578-80 (discussing relevant 16 considerations). Mr. Abpikar cites no support for his contention that courts, including the Ninth 17 Circuit, “routinely” permit early discovery for the purpose of identifying and serving defendants. 18 See Dkt. No. 36 at 2, 3. 19 In his motion for leave, Mr. Abpikar does not specifically address all of the relevant 20 considerations described above. While he has identified the Sandovals as defendants with 21 specificity (i.e. by name and by their alleged roles in the events at issue), he has not established 22 that his claims against them could withstand a motion to dismiss. For example, the motion refers 23 only very generally to Mr. Abpikar’s allegations that the Sandovals “acted jointly with Defendant 24 DMV officers in the events giving rise to this action,” without further elaboration or discussion. 25 See Dkt. No. 36 at 2. Even if the Court assumes for purposes of this motion that Mr. Abpikar had 26 adequately established that at least one of his claims against the Sandovals could withstand a 27 motion to dismiss, he has not described the steps previously taken to identify the Sandovals’ 1 not been able to locate the Sandovals’ addresses, see Dkt. No. 36-1 ¶ 2, and that the prosecutor in 2 his criminal case has refused to provide this information to him, see id. ¶ 4. The motion does not 3 explain, for example, what steps Mr. Abpikar’s process server took, if any, to identify service 4 addresses for the Sandovals.1 5 Finally, the Court considers whether the discovery Mr. Abpikar proposes is reasonably 6 likely to yield the information he requires to effect service of process on the Sandovals. With 7 respect to the proposed subpoena to the San Jose Police Department, the scope of discovery Mr. 8 Abpikar seeks—property intake and evidence logs, chain of custody records, incident reports, and 9 records identifying individuals who “surrendered [his] iPhone(s)”—far exceeds the information he 10 requires—namely, the addresses of the Sandovals. However, Mr. Abpikar’s proposed 11 interrogatories to the DMV defendants appear to be limited to the “identification of” and “[l]ast 12 known addresses for service” of the Sandovals. Thus, with respect to this consideration, the 13 proposed interrogatories to the DMV defendants are at least tailored to what Mr. Abpikar says he 14 requires. It is not entirely clear from the record whether the DMV defendants are likely to have 15 this information, and the fact that they failed to respond to Mr. Abpikar’s motion for leave makes 16 this assessment unnecessarily difficult. 17 However, Mr. Abpikar’s proposed discovery gives rise to a different concern that has not 18 been adequately addressed. If, as the record suggests, the Sandovals are not only defendants in 19 this civil action but also witnesses and/or victims in a pending criminal case in which Mr. Abpikar 20 is the named defendant, the Court questions whether it may properly permit Mr. Abpikar himself 21 to obtain their addresses. See, e.g. Doe v. Cnty. of Solano, No. 2:23-cv-00180 AC, 2023 WL 22 8878150 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2023) (ordering disclosure of victims’ identities pursuant to 23 protective order only to counsel for plaintiff). The Court appreciates Mr. Abpikar’s representation 24 that he would comply with an appropriate protective order limiting the use he may make of the 25 address information, but ideally the Sandovals (or their counsel) would have an opportunity to be 26 heard on this point before any such discovery is obtained from the DMV defendants and shared 27 ] directly with Mr. Abpikar. 2 || II. CONCLUSION 3 For the reasons explained above, the Court denies Mr. Abpikar’s motion for leave to 4 || conduct limited early discovery, without prejudice to his filing a new motion that addresses the 5 || relevant considerations and the deficiencies identified in this order. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: January 30, 2026 8 9 Virginia K. DeMarchi 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 a 12

15 16

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