Amazon.com Inc v. Does 1-25, 2:20-cv-00791

Plaintiffs Amazon.com, Inc. and The Procter & Gamble Company sued Does 1–25 alleging sale of counterfeit ALIGN probiotic products via seven Amazon seller accounts, asserting trademark infringement, false designation, breach of contract, and false advertising.
Plaintiffs have been unable to identify real persons behind the seller accounts; provided names/addresses appear fictitious and public searches were unsuccessful.
Investigations tied the seller accounts to Bank of America accounts (Richmond, VA routing area) and identified associated email service providers and card networks.
Plaintiffs moved ex parte to temporarily seal the case (to prevent Defendants from destroying evidence or fleeing) and for expedited discovery under Rule 45 to obtain account-holder information from banks, card networks, and email providers to identify Does.
The court found Plaintiffs diligent and that disclosure risked facilitating evidence destruction; it granted the temporary seal and granted expedited discovery in part, narrowly authorizing subpoenas to specified entities only.
The court denied prospective, open-ended leave to subpoena unnamed companies; Plaintiffs may seek supplemental leave if additional targets are identified. The order requires a copy of the order be provided with each subpoena.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case and filings should be temporarily sealed	Public docketing would allow Defendants to destroy/conceal evidence; seal needed while identities uncovered	Defendants have not appeared; no opposition presented	Court granted temporary sealing, finding "compelling reasons" under Ninth Circuit precedent
Whether expedited discovery to identify Doe defendants is warranted	Plaintiffs exhausted public means, need subpoenas to banks, card networks, and email providers; irreparable harm from ongoing infringement	Defendants have not appeared; no opposition presented	Court found good cause and granted leave to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on identified entities to obtain identifying account information
Whether the court should allow broad, prospective subpoenas to unnamed parties discovered later	Plaintiffs sought permission to serve additional subpoenas on any entities that later appear relevant	Defendants have not appeared; no opposition presented	Court denied blanket prospective leave; Plaintiffs may file supplemental motions for additional subpoenas as needed

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (articulates "compelling reasons" standard to overcome public-access presumption)
Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (requires court to state factual basis when sealing judicial records)
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (diligence is essential to show good cause for expedited discovery)
Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 1999) (plaintiff should be permitted discovery to identify unknown defendants where identity is not known)
Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (applies good-cause analysis for expedited discovery requests)