Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 67.174.205.112
Filing
9
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO SERVE THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA AND DISMISSING CASE by Hon. William Alsup [denying 8 Motion for Leave to File].(whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2016)
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
Plaintiff,
No. C 15-06069 WHA
v.
14
JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED
IP ADDRESS 67.174.205.112,
15
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING LEAVE
TO SERVE THIRD
PARTY SUBPOENA
AND DISMISSING CASE
/
16
17
Plaintiff has filed 178 actions in this district, claiming that defendants, whom plaintiff
18
can only identify by their IP addresses, copied and distributed plaintiff’s pornographic videos
19
using the BitTorrent protocol. In the interest of judicial efficiency, all of plaintiff’s actions in
20
this district were assigned to the undersigned judge.
21
Generally, in order to discover each defendant’s identifying information (and thereafter
22
to effect service), plaintiff must subpoena the defendant’s Internet service provider, for which it
23
must seek leave. Once leave is granted and the subpoena is served, the Internet provider
24
generally responds within six to eight weeks.
25
Plaintiff’s counsel became overwhelmed with the limited time remaining to serve
26
defendants before the deadline set forth in Rule 4(m) after receiving the Internet service
27
provider’s response and proposed a streamlined procedure for the service of process, which
28
extended the deadline to effectuate service to thirty-five days after plaintiff received each
1
defendant’s identifying information from the Internet service provider. An order detailing that
2
procedure was filed in this case (Dkt. No. 6).
3
Plaintiff commenced this action on December 27, 2015. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the
4
deadline to effectuate service was March 28, 2016. Plaintiff filed its motion for leave to file a
5
subpoena on defendant’s Internet service provider on March 28, meaning it would be
6
impossible to serve the defendant before the Rule 4(m) deadline. Plaintiff offered no
7
explanation for its delay in bringing this motion.
8
9
Plaintiff knew the Rule 4(m) deadline from the outset of the case. (Plainly, its decision
to file this motion at the deadline was no accident.) Plaintiff will not be allowed to
automatically extend the deadline to effectuate service indefinitely by seeking leave to serve a
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
third party subpoena at the last possible minute. Counsel should have acted promptly and
12
diligently, and going forward, plaintiff must seek leave to serve such subpoenas within the first
13
thirty days after a case is filed.
14
15
Plaintiff’s instant motion for leave to serve a third party subpoena is DENIED and this
case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of prosecution. The Clerk shall please CLOSE THE FILE.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: April 4, 2016.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?