Roe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ZOOM IMAGING SOLUTIONS, INC., No. 2:19–cv–1544–WBS–KJN Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE APPLICATION

v. TO CONDUCT EXPEDITED DISCOVERY EDWARD ROE, et al., (ECF No. 26) Defendants. 16 This case concerns the alleged theft of confidential information by Defendant Edward Roe and other ex–employees upon their exit from Plaintiff Zoom’s employ. (See ECF No. 1.) The Complaint also names a number of “Doe” Defendants, who Plaintiff believes are more of Roe’s co–conspirators. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte application for leave to take expedited discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) scheduling conference. (ECF No. 26.) Therein, Plaintiff asserts that it needs the names of the “Doe Defendants”––Power’s current and former employees who originally worked for Zoom and who may have participated in the alleged acts. Plaintiff did not notice the ex parte application for hearing, nor did it…