Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.130.20.136

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION AND DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELYSERVE DEFENDANT by Hon. William Alsup denying 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2016)

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 15-04430 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP
ADDRESS 24.130.20.136,
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 27, 2015. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the deadline to effectuate service was January 25,

19

2016. On November 3, 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 November 8 (Dkt. No. 11). That order also required Malibu

22

Media 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 defendant’s identifying information on January 6. On January

26

19, Malibu Media filed its motion to file under seal its amended complaint, proposed summons,

27

and return of service (Dkt. No. 16). On January 20, an order granted Malibu Media’s sealing

28

motion (Dkt. No. 17). The summons issued the same day (Dkt. No. 18).

1

On January 25, the deadline to effectuate service, Malibu Media sought to extend the

2

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

3

extended the deadline to February 5 (Dkt. No. 20). On February 5, Malibu Media sought a

4

further extension, noting counsel still had not received the unredacted summons by mail. The

5

same day, an order extended the deadline to February 19 (Dkt. No. 23). On February 9, counsel

6

for plaintiff contacted the Clerk’s Office, noting that they had not received the unredacted

7

summons by mail, and the Clerk reissued the summons. Malibu Media received the unredacted

8

summons on February 12 and requested a third extension on February 18 (Dkt. No. 23).

seems unlikely, counsel have not acted diligently and have filed the requested extensions at the

11
For the Northern District of California

Even if the unredacted summons was not mailed to Malibu Media on January 20, which

10

United States District Court

9

last minute. Plaintiff’s counsel (or any associated counsel of record) could have gone in person

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

CLOSE THE FILE.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: February 22, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2