Gaponyuk v. Alferov ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] Sergey Gaponyuk, No. 2:23-cev-01317-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Evgeny Alferov, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Sergey Gaponyuk alleges several defendants defrauded him of valuable 18 | cryptocurrency. This court previously granted plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order 19 | and barred the defendants from “withdrawing, transferring, or encumbering any assets” in 20 | specific cryptocurrency addresses, wallets, and trading accounts. See TRO at 1-2, ECF No. 10. 21 | The court also permitted plaintiff to immediately conduct discovery in an effort to uncover the 22 | defendants’ true names and contact information. See id. at 2-3. The temporary restraining order 23 | expired on its own terms. The court then held a status conference and set a hearing on a 24 | preliminary injunction for October 13, 2023, with briefing deadlines governed by the Local 25 | Rules. See Mins., ECF No. 15. 26 Under Local Rule 230(b), motions must be “heard not less than thirty-five (35) days after 27 | service and filing of the motion.” Plaintiff did not file a motion until September 19, 2023, after 28 | that deadline. See Mot. Prelim. Inj. & TRO, ECF No. 16. Nor has plaintiff cited or discussed the 1 legal standard this court must consider when evaluating a motion for a preliminary injunction or a 2 temporary restraining order, i.e., whether the plaintiff “is likely to succeed on the merits” and 3 “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief”; whether “the balance of 4 equities tips in his favor”; and whether “an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. 5 Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see also Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 6 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“[T]he legal standards applicable to TROs and preliminary 7 injunctions are substantially identical.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). The court cannot 8 rely solely on its previous finding that irreparable harm was likely; otherwise a temporary 9 restraining order could be extended indefinitely in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 65(b)(2). Nor may a court issue a preliminary injunction without notice to the adverse party. 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). For these reasons, plaintiff has not shown he is entitled to injunctive 12 relief. 13 In addition to injunctive relief, plaintiff requests further leave to conduct early discovery 14 in an effort to learn the defendants’ true identities. See Mot. at 2. A plaintiff may request 15 permission to begin discovery before the parties have conferred as required by Federal Rule of 16 Civil Procedure 26. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. 17 Cal. 2002). A court may grant early discovery to ascertain the identity of a Doe defendant under 18 this rule. Jacobo v. Doe, No. 22-00672, 2022 WL 2079766, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2022). For 19 the reasons in this court’s previous order, the court finds good cause to permit additional early 20 discovery to ascertain the defendants’ true identities and contact information. See TRO at 6. 21 The motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction are thus denied, 22 and the motion for leave to conduct early discovery and to extend the deadline for early discovery 23 is granted in part: 24 1. Plaintiff may serve the following third parties with subpoenas by first-class mail: 25 Binance, OVH Groupe SAS, Hetzner Online GmbH, and Ayol Net LLC. 26 2. The subpoenas authorized by this order may request the following information 27 about the defendants in this action: legal name, street address, telephone number, and email 28 address. ] 3. All discovery authorized by this order must be completed by October 31, 2023. 2 | Plaintiff may request the court’s authorization to conduct additional discovery based on a 3 | showing of good cause. 4 4. A further status conference is set for November 16, 2023 at 2:30 p.m. before the 5 | undersigned, with a further status report due fourteen days prior. The status conference will be 6 | by videoconference. 7 This order resolves ECF No. 16. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: September 26, 2023. 10 eee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE