Kippes v. John Does 1-25
5:25-cv-03616
| N.D. Cal. | Aug 7, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Patrick Kippes alleges loss of approximately $200,000 in cryptocurrency after being lured into trading on a fraudulent exchange by an individual using the alias "Vicky Wang."
- The perpetrators used LinkedIn, WhatsApp, and iMessage to contact Kippes, eventually directing him to deposit cryptocurrency to specified blockchain addresses believed to be associated with a legitimate exchange.
- After failed attempts to withdraw his funds and being told to deposit more money to proceed, Kippes realized he was the victim of a scam.
- Kippes traced the stolen assets through wallets at major exchanges (Coinbase, Kraken, Crypto.com, HitBtc, Changelly), but does not know the identities of the fraudsters (named as Doe Defendants).
- Plaintiff sought the court's permission to serve ex parte subpoenas on exchanges and platform providers prior to a Rule 26(f) conference to uncover the Doe Defendants' identities and prevent asset dissipation.
- The case is at an early stage; the court previously required and received jurisdictional clarification, and the First Amended Complaint survives initial scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early discovery to identify Doe Defendants | Immediate subpoenas necessary to identify fraudsters and enjoin them | No opposition recorded from Doe Defendants at this ex parte stage | Court grants limited early discovery for identifying information |
| Scope of subpoenas | Seeks broad KYC, AML, balance, transaction, device data | N/A (no response at this stage by Doe Defendants) | Only basic identifying info and account balances permitted |
| Notice to account holders (Doe Defendants) | Wants exchanges not to notify users to prevent asset dissipation | Standard practice is for exchanges to notify account holders | Court allows no notice, subject to further order, to prevent dissipation |
| Use and confidentiality of subpoenaed info | Info will be used to pursue this action | N/A (not opposed/discussed) | Info must be kept confidential and only used in this litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 1999) (plaintiffs should be given discovery opportunity to identify unknown defendants)
- Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (outlines factors for early discovery to uncover Doe defendants)
- Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (good cause standard for expedited discovery)