1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CYRUS HODES, Case No. 23-cv-03481-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. MOTION FOR AN ORDER

PERMITTING LIMITED EARLY

10 MOHAMMAD AMAD MOSTAQUE, et al., DISCOVERY REGARDING

DOCUMENT SPOLIATION

11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff’s “Motion for an Order Permitting Limited Early 14 Discovery Regarding Document Spoliation,” filed July 24, 2023. Defendants have filed 15 opposition, to which plaintiff has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in 16 support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for 17 determination of the parties’ respective written submissions, vacates the hearing 18 scheduled for September 1, 2023, and rules as follows. 19 By the instant motion, plaintiff seeks “permission to take early discovery from 20 [d]efendants and related entities/individuals about [d]efendants’ preservation efforts (if 21 any) and the extent of any spoliation of evidence.” (See Mot. 3:17-19.) 22 Rule 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] party may not 23 seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 24 26(f), except . . . when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” See 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Courts within the Ninth Circuit generally apply a “good cause” 26 standard in considering motions to expedite discovery. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo 27 Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be found 1 outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Id. at 276. In determining whether 2 || good cause justifies expedited discovery, courts consider the following factors: “(1) 3 || whether a preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) 4 || the purpose for requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to 5 || comply with the requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the 6 request was made.” See Facebook, Inc. v. Various, Inc., 2011 WL 2437433, at *2 (N.D. 7 || Cal. June 17, 2011). 8 Having considered the above-referenced factors, the Court finds, on the record 9 || presented, none weighs in favor of granting the motion, and, of particular significance, 10 || finds plaintiff has failed to show the circumstances surrounding the deletion of WhatsApp 11 messages, the event that prompted the filing of the instant motion, demonstrate spoliation 12 || or any other need for the relief requested.

2 13 Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED.

S 14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 - 17 || Dated: August 25, 2023 :

MAXKINE M. CHESNEY

18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28