Hunsinger v. Doe Corporation, 3:22-cv-02444

Pro se plaintiff Joe Hunsinger sued an unidentified defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging prerecorded telemarketing calls to his number (which is on the national Do Not Call registry) without consent.
Plaintiff says the caller used short-lived "burner" telephone numbers that remain active ~24 hours and that callbacks do not connect to a live person or provide opt-out/identifying information.
Hunsinger moved for leave to serve discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference to identify the defendant by subpoenaing three third parties that owned the specific numbers and any platforms to which those numbers were leased or sold.
The court applied the Fifth Circuit district-court practice of the "good cause" (reasonableness) standard for expedited pre-Rule 26(d) discovery and cited a five-factor analysis used in prior decisions.
Because plaintiff had no other means to identify the caller and sought narrowly tailored subpoenas solely for identification, the magistrate judge found good cause and granted limited expedited discovery.
Relief: plaintiff may serve subpoenas on the three third-party number owners and on any third-party platforms to which those numbers were sold or leased, solely to identify the defendant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expedited discovery before Rule 26(f) is permitted to identify a Doe defendant	Good cause exists because burner numbers prevent identification absent subpoenas to number owners/platforms	No named defendant appeared to oppose; court must guard against ex parte or unduly burdensome discovery of third parties	Granted limited expedited discovery to identify the defendant via subpoenas to the three number owners and related platforms
Proper scope of expedited discovery	Requests are narrow and targeted — subpoenas limited to three numbers for identification only	Broad or open-ended discovery would be burdensome and prejudicial to third parties	Discovery limited to the narrowly requested subpoenas; sole purpose: identify subscriber/entity tied to the three numbers

Elargo Holdings, LLC v. Doe-68.105.146.38, 318 F.R.D. 58 (M.D. La. 2016) (applies "good cause" standard for expedited discovery)
El Pollo Loco, S.A. de C.V. v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., 344 F. Supp. 2d 986 (S.D. Tex. 2004) (plaintiff bears burden to show good cause for pre-Rule 26(f) discovery)
In re Fannie Mae Derivative Litig., 227 F.R.D. 142 (D.D.C. 2005) (articulates factors for evaluating expedited discovery requests)
Ayyash v. Bank Al-Madina, 233 F.R.D. 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (reasonableness test for expedited discovery)
Qwest Communications Int'l, Inc. v. Worldquest Networks, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418 (D. Colo. 2003) (reasonableness balancing approach to early discovery)
Yokohama Tire Corp. v. Dealers Tire Supply, 202 F.R.D. 612 (D. Ariz. 2001) (ex parte expedited discovery is rarely justified)