Evan Brown lays this out so clearly it would be a shame to go through the trouble of paraphrasing:
In federal court, you canâ€™t start the discovery process until the parties have met to discuss certain issues (this is called a Rule 26(f) conference). But thereâ€™s an obvious chicken and egg problem in cases like this that have anonymous defendants â€” how do you confer with a defendant you donâ€™t know? Youâ€™re kind of stuck if you canâ€™t take discovery to learn who he is.
Fortunately the court can allow discovery to happen before the Rule 26(f) conference when there is good cause.
So Zynga has argued that there is good cause to allow it to serve subpoenas on Godaddy (the registrant for the MAFIAWARSDIRECT.COM, MWBLACKMARKET.COM, and MWFEXPRESS.COM domain names) and PayPal, who apparently facilitated the purchase of virtual goods.
The court agreed that Zynga should get to serve the subpoenas. But it found that the subpoenas as proposed were too broad. For example, Zynga sought all billing and account records, server logs, website content, contact information, transaction histories and correspondence for the persons or entities that purchased services from the offending sites. The court held that the limited discovery appropriate for Zynga at the early stage would only allow it to get identifying information for the site owners.