Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.181.126.175

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION AND DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY SERVE DEFENDANT by Hon. William Alsup denying 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2016)

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
15

No. C 15-04280 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP
ADDRESS 69.181.126.175,
Defendant.
/

ORDER DENYING REQUEST
FOR EXTENSION AND
DISMISSING CASE FOR
FAILURE TO TIMELY
SERVE DEFENDANT

16
17

Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC commenced this copyright infringement action on

18

September 18, 2015. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the deadline to effectuate service was January 18,

19

2016. On October 11, Malibu Media filed a motion for leave to serve defendant’s Internet

20

provider with a subpoena for the purpose of receiving defendant’s identifying information. An

21

order granted that motion on October 18 (Dkt. No. 11). That order also required Malibu Media

22

to file any documents that included defendant’s identifying information under seal and

23

prohibited Malibu Media from disclosing that information or using it for any purpose other than

24

protecting its rights as set forth in the complaint.

25

Malibu Media received Comcast’s response on December 14. Malibu Media had thirty-

26

five days within which to move to file under seal an amended complaint and proposed summons

27

including defendant’s identifying information and to effectuate service once it received the

28

unredacted summons. On January 19, Malibu Media filed its sealing motion and sought an
extension of the deadline to effectuate service, which lapsed the previous day (Dkt. Nos.

1

17–18). The same day, an order granted Malibu Media’s sealing motion and extended the

2

deadline to effectuate service to January 29, 2016 (Dkt. No. 19). The summons issued the same

3

day (Dkt. No. 20).

4

On January 29, Malibu Media again sought to extend the deadline to effectuate service

5

noting that counsel had not yet received the unredacted summons by mail. An order extended

6

the deadline to February 16 (Dkt. No. 22). On February 9, counsel for plaintiff contacted the

7

Clerk’s Office, noting that they had not received the unredacted summons by mail, and the

8

Clerk reissued the summons. Malibu Media received the unredacted summons on February 12

9

and requested a third extension on February 16 (Dkt. No. 24).
Even if the unredacted summons was not mailed to Malibu Media on January 19, which

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

seems unlikely, counsel have not acted diligently and have filed the sealing motion and

12

requested extensions at the last minute (including once after the deadline had lapsed).

13

Plaintiff’s counsel (or any associated counsel of record) could have gone in person to the

14

Clerk’s Office on the 16th floor of 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, to retrieve the

15

unredacted summons thereby avoiding any delays caused by the mail. Counsel elected not to

16

do so. (To be clear, in order to protect the identity of the defendants in Malibu Media’s

17

numerous ongoing actions in this district, unredacted summonses will only be issued to counsel

18

that have appeared in the given action, not to any third parties such as messengers.)

19

Malibu Media’s failure to timely serve the defendant in this action is the result of flawed

20

follow-through on counsel’s part. Malibu Media’s third request for an extension is DENIED,

21

and this action is DISMISSED for failure to timely serve the defendant. The Clerk shall please

22

CLOSE THE FILE.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: February 17, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2