GRETHAKU OU, Plaintiff, v. CLICK LABS, INC., SAMAR SINGLA, and CLICK LABS.COM, Defendants CASE NO. 8:22-cv-1341-WFJ-SPF United States District Court, M.D. Florida Signed August 02, 2022 Counsel Robert DeWitty, Pro Hac Vice, Washington, DC, Agnes Mombrun Geter, Mombrun Law, PLLC, St. Petersburg, FL, for Plaintiff. Patrick H. Willis, Christopher M. Harne, Willis & Oden, PL, Orlando, FL, for Defendants, Click Labs, Inc., Nora Jain. Christopher M. Harne, Willis & Oden, PL, Orlando, FL, for Defendants, Samar Singla. Flynn, Sean P., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference (Doc. 21). Plaintiff filed its complaint on June 10, 2022, alleging Defendants breached a contract (the “Master Service Agreement”) between the parties pertaining to the creation and coding of a members-only dating app, which Plaintiff describes as “an online platform where users can view nearby users and connect with them via chat/video call[ ]” (Doc. 1 at ¶ 1). Plaintiff also alleges causes of action for fraud, unjust enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (Id.). According to Plaintiff, under the Master Service Agreement, Defendants agreed to provide code for the app by a certain date. Plaintiff alleges it paid over $100,000 to Defendants, who failed to deliver a functional product (Id. at ¶ 25). On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order relating to a non-disclosure agreement between the parties (Doc. 12). The Court denied the motion the next day, finding Plaintiff had not demonstrated irreparable harm (Doc. 13). On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff moved for leave to serve Click Labs, Inc.’s director, non-party Nora Jain, with a subpoena for deposition prior to the parties conducting a case management conference under Rule 26(f) (Doc. 18). Plaintiff contended it needed to depose Ms. Jain because “the addresses for Defendants Samar Singla and Click-labs.com were determined to be undeliverable.” (Doc. 18-1 at 3). Plaintiff has served Click Labs, Inc. but its summonses were returned unexecuted as to Defendants Singla and Click-labs.com (Docs. 14-17). The Court granted Plaintiff's first motion for early discovery in a July 18, 2022 Endorsed Order (Doc. 19). At this juncture, Plaintiff has filed a second motion for early discovery (Doc. 21), asking the Court for leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Defendants’ financial institution. Plaintiff seeks information from January 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022, relating to wire transfers, deposits, and withdrawals involving a certain bank account Plaintiff attributes to Defendants, the “persons or entities authorizing and signing wire transfers” from the account, and “the names of persons or entities to whom said wire transfers were sent.” (Doc. 21 at 1-2).[1] Plaintiff needs this information because it “is still in the process of researching and discovering Defendants’ business operations.” (Doc. 21-1 at 2). Under Rule 26(f), parties must confer as soon as practicable before a scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1). Typically, a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), unless authorized by court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). A court may authorize early discovery for the convenience of the parties or witnesses and in the interests of justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(2). Under Rule 26(b), courts may order discovery of any relevant matter for good cause. “Courts who have dealt with these ... cases generally consider whether a plaintiff has shown ‘good cause’ for the early discovery.” Nu Image, Inc. v. Does 1-3, 932, No. 11-cv-545-FtM-29SPC, 2012 WL 1623862, at * 2 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2012) (citation and quotations omitted). As with other matters of managing discovery, courts wield broad discretion in fashioning discovery orders under Rule 26. See Alameida v. Amazon Corp., 456 F.3d 1316, 1327 n.6 (11th Cir. 2006); Perez v. Miami-Dade County, 297 F.3d 1255, 1264 (11th Cir. 2002). *2 Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence of good cause. Although Plaintiff argues there is no other way for it to “follow the business operation and cash flow relating to Defendant's business” than to subpoena Defendants’ bank records (Doc. 21-1 at 3), this does not hold water. The purpose of Plaintiff's request to depose Ms. Jain (which the Court granted at Doc. 19) was to identify and locate Defendants. This is ostensibly the reason for Plaintiff's second motion, too (see Doc. 21-1 at 4 (“The information is vital to accurately identify all parties involved with Defendants’ business operations.”)). Considering this, Plaintiff has not shown good cause to subpoena Defendants’ financial records – nor has it demonstrated that its need for the information outweighs Defendants’ privacy interests in their financial transactions – at this early stage of the litigation. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference (Doc. 21) is DENIED; (2) The Clerk of Court is directed to strike Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 21) from the docket for failure to comply with Rule 5.2(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, August 2, 2022. Footnotes [1] In numerous places, Plaintiff's motion and attachments list the full account number of Defendants’ Bank of America account. This is impermissible under Rule 5.2(a), and the Court orders it stricken from the public record.