Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE by Judge Alsup denying 13 Motion to Quash; denying 14 Motion to Continue. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2017)

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

Plaintiff,

No. C 16--05843 WHA

v.
JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address
108.77.237.167,
Defendant.
/

ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO QUASH AND MOTION
TO CONTINUE CASE
MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

16
17

Malibu Media seeks to continue the case management conference scheduled for

18

March 30 inasmuch as it has not yet received defendant’s identity in response to the subpoena

19

on AT&T Internet Services (Dkt. No. 14). Meanwhile, counsel for defendant has appeared,

20

seeking to quash the subpoena (Dkt. No. 13).

21

Defendant argues that the subpoena should be quashed or stayed, contending he never

22

had or distributed the copyrighted materials at issue, but may know who the proper defendant is.

23

In his brief, defendant stated he offered to provide Malibu Media with “unfettered access” to his

24

computer but received no response from counsel for Malibu Media, though there is no sworn

25

statement to support that contention (Def.’s Mtn. at 1). Defendant’s primary concern appears to

26

be the possibility that he will be publicly identified in an action involving piracy of

27

pornographic videos.

28

Defendant’s objections are not a proper basis for staying or quashing the subpoena, so
that request is DENIED. Nevertheless, a protective order is already in place requiring Malibu

1

Media to file all documents with identifying information about defendant under seal, with that

2

identifying information redacted on the public record. (Defendant may also file such

3

documents under seal.)

4

Malibu Media’s request to continue the case management conference is also DENIED.

5

Although defendant has not been served, defense counsel has already appeared, so there is no

6

reason to delay. At the case management conference, counsel for Malibu Media shall come

7

prepared to explain their failure to respond to defense counsel for more than one week. Both

8

sides shall also come prepared to discuss an expedited discovery schedule that would facilitate

9

an early summary judgment motion by defendant, based on the representations in his brief.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Finally, if defense counsel feels the protective order already in place is insufficient, they
may suggest additional terms at the case management conference.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: March 24, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2