Thomas Joseph Goddard v. Slickdeals, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 27, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-01039
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS JOSEPH GODDARD, Case No. 26-cv-01039-AGT

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EXEMPTION v. FROM PACER FEES AND EARLY DISCOVERY SLICKDEALS, LLC, Re: Dkt. Nos. 4, 9 Defendant.

The Court denies Goddard’s request for a PACER fee waiver. Dkt. 4. As an e-filer, Goddard can download without charge any order, motion, or other document filed in his case. Thus, contrary to his assertion that “[w]ithout PACER access, [he] would be effectively barred from meaningful participation in this litigation,” id. at 5, he doesn’t need a PACER fee waiver to keep abreast of activity in this case. The Court denies Goddard’s motion for early discovery. Dkt. 9. Goddard hasn’t demonstrated “good cause” for expedited discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Nor has he per- suaded the Court that he needs an “immediate [ESI] preservation” order. Dkt. 9 at 2. / / / / / / / / / / / / The undersigned lacks full consent in this case. However, because this Court’s order is not dispositive of any claims or defenses, the undersigned has authority to issue these rulings. Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1045—46 (9th Cir. 2015). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 27, 2026 Me United States Magistrate Judge