Malibu Media LLC v. John Does

Filing 19

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to Why Remaining Defendants Should Not be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 4(m) by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 1/24/2013. (rne)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

Title

Date

2:12-cv-01642-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-03614-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-03615-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-03617-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-03619-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-03620-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-03621-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-03622-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-03623-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-04649-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-04650-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-04651-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-04652-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-04653-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-01647-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-04654-RGK-SS;
8:12-cv-00652-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-04656-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-04657-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-04658-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-04660-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-04661-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-04662-RGK-SS; 8:12-cv-00647-RGK-SS;
8:12-cv-00649-RGK-SS; 8:12-cv-00650-RGK-SS;
8:12-cv-00651-RGK-SS;

January 17, 2013

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOES 1-10

Present: The
Honorable

R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

S. Williams (not present)

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause as to Why Remaining
Defendants Should Not be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 4(m)

From February 27, 2012 to June 27, 2012, Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed
thirty-three separate lawsuits against various groups of John Doe Defendants (collectively
“Defendants”) for claims of copyright infringement. In each lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants acting in concert together, used the BitTorrent protocol, an internet peer-to-peer
file sharing network, to unlawfully reproduce and distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted works in
violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Given the similarity of Plaintiff’s
allegations, the thirty-three cases were transferred to this Court. In its July 10, 2012 Case
Management Order, the Court vacated any orders permitting Plaintiff leave to conduct early
discovery to determine Defendants’ identities. On August 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a renewed
motion for leave to conduct early discovery. (DE 28.)
On October 10, 2012, the Court denied early discovery. (DE 32.) It also dismissed
without prejudice claims against all Defendants, except for individuals designated as “John
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

Doe 1.” Id. After the October 10 Order, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed several of the original
cases, however, the above-captioned cases remained. To this date, no defendants listed as
“John Doe 1” have been served in any of the remaining cases.
Under Federal Rule Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 4(m), the summons and Complaint must be
served upon defendants within 120 days from the date of the filing of the Complaint. The time
limit for service in all these cases has well passed. To this date, Plaintiff has failed to file a
request for additional time to comply with Rule 4(m).
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why these cases should not be dismissed
for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 4(m) by no later than January 24, 2013.
Plaintiff shall limit its response to no more than ten pages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of
Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2