BINBIT ARGENTINA, S.A., Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES 1-25, et al., Defendants Case No. 19-cv-05384-KAW United States District Court, N.D. California Filed January 21, 2021 Counsel Alex James Shepard, Marc John Randazza, Randazza Legal Group, PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff. Westmore, Kandis A., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EARLY DISCOVERY *1 On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff Binbit Argentina, S.A. filed the instant case, asserting claims for breach of contract and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. (Compl. at 1, Dkt. No. 1.) On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed its fourth ex parte motion for early discovery from Dynadot LLC (“Dynadot”). (Pl.'s Mot. for Early Discovery, Dkt. No. 22.) The Court previously granted Plaintiff's motions for early discovery from Dynadot as to the identities of Doe Defendants. (See Dkt. Nos. 13, 19.) While Plaintiff received certain identifying information from Dynadot, Plaintiff now seeks additional discovery from Dynadot as to Defendants' billing records and information. (Pl.'s Mot. for Early Discovery at 2.) On December 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed supplemental briefing explaining its need for billing records and information. (Pl.'s Supp. Briefing, Dkt. No. 26.) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for early discovery. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) permits a court to authorize early discovery if there is good cause. Further: In determining whether there is good cause to allow expedited discovery to identify anonymous internet users named as doe defendants, courts consider whether: (1) the plaintiff can identify the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2) the plaintiff has identified all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant; (3) the plaintiff's suit against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) the plaintiff has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood of being able to identify the defendant through discovery such that service of process would be possible. OpenMind Sols., Inc. v. Doe, Case No. 11-cv-3311-MEJ, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116552, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011). Plaintiff has shown that Defendants are real persons or entities which may be sued in this Court. As the Court previously found, Defendants contracted with Dynadot and Cloudflare to obtain domain name services; in doing so, they agreed to terms of use with forum selection clauses in this district. (See Dkt. No. 13 at 2; Dkt. No. 19 at 2-3.) The Ninth Circuit has found that “a party has consented to personal jurisdiction when the party took some kind of affirmative act [such as] accepting a forum selection clause ....” SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1149 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, “courts have found personal jurisdiction based on consent to forum selection clauses contained in internet websites' terms of use.” Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Johnston, Case No. 16-cv-3404-BLF, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184300, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2018). Second, Plaintiff has identified steps taken to identify Defendants. Plaintiff has obtained early discovery from Dynadot to identify the individuals and entities associated with the domain names. (Pl.'s Mot. for Early Discovery at 2.) Plaintiff now seeks further discovery to ensure Defendants can be served in compliance with the Hague Service Convention. (Id.) *2 Third, at least some of Plaintiff's claims can survive a motion to dismiss. (See Dkt. No. 13 at 3.) For example, Plaintiff brings a breach of contract claim. Plaintiff's contracts prohibit its Networks and Affiliates from making misleading or fraudulent statements as part of a marketing campaign. (Compl. ¶ 32.) Defendants, however, made fraudulent representations in signing individuals up for Plaintiff's services, causing reputational harm and lost revenue. (Compl. ¶¶ 33-36.) Fourth, there is a reasonable likelihood that the discovery sought will allow Plaintiff to identify Defendants sufficiently to serve Defendants in compliance with the Hague Service Convention. Specifically, Plaintiffs explain that while they received Defendants' contact information used to register a domain with Dynadot, there is “nothing stopping an individual from providing a false name and false address to register a domain; the only consequence is losing their domain registration ....” (Pl.'s Supp. Brief at 2.) In contrast, billing and payment records will show payor names and contact information that is more likely to be reliable because payments must come from a legitimate source. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a showing of good cause, and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for early discovery. Plaintiff may serve subpoenas on Dynadot for the limited purpose of obtaining billing records and information (such as payor names and contact information) necessary to serve Defendants. Dynadot will have 30 days from the date of service upon it to serve each of its subscriber(s) whose identifying information is sought with a copy of the subpoena and a copy of this order. Dynadot may serve the subscribers using any reasonable means, including written notice sent to the subscriber's last known address, transmitted either by first-class mail or via overnight service. Dynadot and each subscriber shall have 30 days from the date of service upon him, her, or it to file any motions in this court contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or modify the subpoena). If the 30-day period lapses without the subscriber contesting the subpoena, Dynadot shall have 10 days to produce to Plaintiff the information responsive to the subpoena with respect to that subscriber. Dynadot shall preserve all subpoenaed information pending Dynadot delivering such information to Plaintiff or the final resolution of a timely filed motion to quash the subpoena with respect to such information. Any information disclosed to Plaintiff in response to a subpoena may be used by Plaintiff solely for the purpose of litigating this lawsuit. This order is without prejudice to the rights of any party to move to quash the subpoenas or to respond to the subpoenas in any other manner permitted by law. IT IS SO ORDERED.