Legal Opinion
Brown v. Does 1-20
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided May 19, 2025No. 3:25-cv-05256Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 PATRICK BROWN, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05256-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 12 v. MOTION FOR EARLY DISCOVERY 13 DOES 1-20, 14 Defendants. 15 16 Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Patrick Brown’s Ex Parte Motion for Early Discovery. 17 Dkt. No. 9. Having considered the motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the governing 18 law, the Court DENIES the motion. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Mr. Brown owns and operates a portfolio of “premium fetish adult-oriented audiovisual 21 content[.]” Dkt. No. 7 at…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.Supreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist.Supreme Court of the United States · 2021
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Theodore C. Swartz v. Kpmg Llp, and Presidio Advisory Services Inc. Deutsche Bank Ag Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.