SingularDTV GmbH v. Doe
Plaintiff: SingularDTV GmbH
Defendant: John Doe
Case Number: 1:2021cv06000
Filed: July 13, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Valerie E Caproni
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18 U.S.C. ยง 1030
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
RSS RSS Track this Docket
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 26, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 16, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER granting #6 Letter Motion for Discovery. Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for expedited discovery to identify Defendants and locate the stolen property wrongfully sourced through Defendant's unlawful conduct. The Court further finds that the scope of the expedited discovery is reasonable. Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may immediately serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Google to obtain information to identify John Doe, specifically her or his true name and recovery e-mail(s) and phone number(s) associated with the arielevyycohen@gmail.com Gmail e-mail account. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Google will have 60 days from the date of service of the Rule 45 subpoena upon them to contest this subpoena; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may immediately serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Binance to obtain information to identify and locate the wallet addresses of current Token holders. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Binance will have 60 days from the date of service of the Rule 45 subpoena upon them to contest this subpoena; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if that 60-day period lapses without Google or Binance contesting the subpoena, Google and Binance shall have 10 days to produce the information responsive to the subpoena to Plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the subpoenaed entities shall preserve any subpoenaed information pending the resolution of any timely-filed motion to quash. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Google shall confer with Plaintiff and shall not assess any charge in advance of providing the information requested in the subpoena. Should Google elect to charge for the costs of production, it shall provide a billing summary and cost report to Plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Binance shall confer with Plaintiff and shall not assess any charge in advance of providing the information requested in the subpoena. Should Google elect to charge for the costs of production, it shall provide a billing summary and cost report to Plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order along with any subpoenas issued pursuant to this order to Google. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order along with any subpoenas issued pursuant to this order to Binance. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any information ultimately disclosed to Plaintiff in response to a Rule 45 subpoena may be used by Plaintiff solely for the purpose of identifying Defendant and protecting Plaintiff's rights as set forth in its complaint. Plaintiff must file an update on the status of its effort to identify Defendant by September 15, 2021, and on the 15th day (or next business day thereafter) of each subsequent month. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 8/16/2021) (ate)
July 20, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 6 FIRST MOTION for Discovery LEAVE TO SERVE THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA. Document filed by SingularDTV GmbH. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit EXHIBIT PLM-A, #2 Affidavit ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION, #3 Affidavit AFFIDAVIT OF CARL VOLZ, ESQ., #4 Exhibit EXHIBIT CV-A, #5 Exhibit EXHIBIT CV-B, #6 Exhibit EXHIBIT CV-C, #7 Affidavit AFFIDAVIT OF KIM JACKSON, #8 Exhibit EXHIBIT KJ-A, #9 Affidavit AFFIDAVIT OF DANIEL GHAZI, #10 Text of Proposed Order PROPOSED ORDER).(Tenenbaum, Jerald)
July 20, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER: denying #4 Letter Motion for Conference re: #4 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Conference addressed to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman from Jerald M. Tenenbaum, Esq. dated 07/14/2021. Plaintiff's consent to proceed before a magistrate judge for all purposes does not result in a referral of this action to the magistrate judge because not all parties have consented. See N.Y. Chinese TV Programs, Inc. v. U.E. Enters., Inc., 996 F.2d 21, 23-24 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Consent of all parties to be bound by a judgment of a magistrate judge is required by 28 U.S.C. 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73."). Accordingly, this case will proceed before the undersigned, subject to Defendant's appearance and consent to proceed before the magistrate judge. Plaintiff's request for a pre-motion conference in anticipation of its motion for leave to serve third-partysubpoenas is denied as unnecessary. Plaintiff is instructed to file its motion as expeditiously as possible. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 7/20/2021) (ama)
July 14, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 4 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Conference addressed to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman from Jerald M. Tenenbaum, Esq. dated 07/14/2021. Document filed by SingularDTV GmbH..(Tenenbaum, Jerald)
July 14, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 3 NOTICE of Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge. Document filed by SingularDTV GmbH..(Tenenbaum, Jerald)
July 14, 2021 Opinion or Order Case Designated ECF. (pc)
July 14, 2021 Opinion or Order ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING CIVIL. CASE OPENING STATISTICAL ERROR CORRECTION: Notice to attorney Jerald Tenenbaum. The following case opening statistical information was erroneously selected/entered: Nature of Suit code 370 (Other Fraud);. The following correction(s) have been made to your case entry: the Nature of Suit code has been modified to 890 (Other Statutory Actions);. (pc)
July 14, 2021 Opinion or Order CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above-entitled action is assigned to Judge Valerie E. Caproni. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/district-judges. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related-instructions..(pc)
July 14, 2021 Opinion or Order Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (pc)
July 13, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed..(Tenenbaum, Jerald)
July 13, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 1 COMPLAINT against John Doe. (Filing Fee $ 402.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC-24787498)Document filed by SingularDTV GmbH..(Tenenbaum, Jerald)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: SingularDTV GmbH v. Doe
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: SingularDTV GmbH
Represented By: Jerald Tenenbaum
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: John Doe
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?