Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.181.25.79

Filing 27

***CORRECTED*** ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE OF PROCESS. Signed by Judge Alsup on 1/19/16. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

No. C 15-04159 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP
ADDRESS 69.181.25.79,

ORDER EXTENDING
DEADLINE TO EFFECTUATE
SERVICE OF PROCESS

Defendant.
/

15
16

Plaintiff commenced this action on September 11, 2015. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the

17

deadline to effectuate service of process was January 11, 2016. On October 18, 2015, an order

18

granted plaintiff’s request to serve a third-party subpoena on defendant’s Internet provider,

19

Comcast, in order to obtain defendant’s identifying information. Plaintiff received defendant’s

20

identifying information from Comcast on December 14. On January 6, plaintiff moved to file

21

under seal its amended complaint, proposed summons, and return of service, which motion was

22

granted on January 7. The order granting plaintiff’s sealing motion also extended the deadline

23

to effectuate service to January 15. On January 15, plaintiff sought to further extend the

24

deadline to effectuate service by forty-five days because it had not yet received a mailed copy

25

of the unredacted summons to be served on defendant.

26

Defendant had thirty-two days to serve defendant from the date it received Comcast’s

27

response and offers an inadequate explanation for its failure to do so within that time period.

28

Specifically, plaintiff avers, without any details, that it “conducted a thorough investigation of
the information provided” by Comcast. Further, plaintiff notes that it had to move to file under
seal its amended complaint, proposed summons, and return of service before it can serve

1

defendant, which motion it filed twenty-three days after receiving defendant’s identifying

2

information. Finally, plaintiff notes it had to wait to receive a mailed copy of the unredacted

3

summons before it could effectuate service.

4

In the Court’s judgment, four weeks following the receipt of defendant’s identifying

5

information should be plenty enough time to effectuate service unless defendant is dodging

6

service. Nevertheless, this order hereby extends the deadline to effectuate service to JANUARY

7

29, 2016. Going forward, plaintiff must serve the defendants in its other cases within the 120

8

days provided in Rule 4(m) (90 days for cases filed after the 2015 amendments to the Federal

9

Rules of Civil Procedure took effect) or four weeks from receiving the identifying information
from the defendant’s Internet provider.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: January 19, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2