Two preliminary points. First, the Court is not required to decide, and does not decide, whether Defendant Dr. CraigWright is Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of the Bitcoin cybercurrency.2The Court also is not required to decide, and does not decide,how much bitcoin, if any, Dr. Wright controls today. For purposes of this proceeding, the Court accepts Dr. Wright’s representationthat he controlled (directly or indirectly) some bitcoin on December 31, 2013, and that he continues to control some today.PROCEDURAL HISTORYThis case arises from a dispute over the ownership of bitcoin and Bitcoin-related intellectual property. Plaintiffs allege in the Second Amended Complaint that David Kleiman and Dr. Wright were partners in the creation of the Bitcoin cybercurrency and that they “mined” (i.e.,acquired) a substantial amount of that currency together.DE 83.Dr. Wright denies any partnership with David Kleiman, and further deniesthat David Kleiman had anownership interest in the bitcoin that was mined. Alternatively, Dr. Wright assertsthat David Kleiman transferred any interest he had in the bitcoinand the intellectual property to Dr. Wright in exchange for equity in a company that ultimately failed.See DE 87.David Kleiman died in 2013. As early as July 2018, Plaintiffs sought discovery to identify the bitcoin that Dr. Wright owned and controlled(his “bitcoin holdings”). In Ira Kleiman’s First Set of Interrogatories served on July 31, 2018, heaskedDr. Wright to identify “public keys and publicaddresses” for any cryptocurrency he currently or previously owned. DE 91-2 at 8.Dr. Wright responded on
