Mukati v Doe
Filing
20
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; ADVANCING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers,denying 16 Motion for TRO. Case Management Conference set for 3/19/18 is ADVANCED to Monday, 1/29/2018 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2018)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
MOHAMMAD MUKATI,
CASE NO. 17-cv-07093-YGR
Plaintiff,
7
8
vs.
9
JOHN DOE, ET AL.,
Defendants.
10
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER; ADVANCING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Re: Dkt. No. 16
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
The Court is in receipt of plaintiff’s supplemental filing in support of his renewed motion
13
for a temporary restraining order. (Dkt. No. 19 (“Supplemental Filing”); Dkt. No. 16 (“Renewed
14
TRO Motion”).) The filing was made in response to the Court’s order requesting plaintiff to
15
submit proof of ownership regarding the domain names at issue in this case (the “Domain
16
Names”), namely copies of “‘receipts for buying the domains, the cloudflare accounts and the
17
google analytics . . . with respect to each and every domain name at issue in plaintiff’s Renewed
18
TRO Motion . . . .’” (Dkt. No. 17 (quoting Dkt. No. 16-4 at ECF 73).) The Court also specifically
19
ordered that the evidence “be organized by domain name.” (Id.)
20
Despite the Court’s order, plaintiff appears to have produced a massive data dump which is
21
not organized in any coherent manner.1 In certain instances, the information does not even pertain
22
1
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s domain name index was apparently provided to the Court in an attempt to
organize the produced evidence. (See Supplemental Filing at ECF 505–12.) Aside from failing to
list the Domain Names in any logical order (let alone alphabetical order), the index directs the
Court to page numbers that are often wrong. For example, the index represents to the Court that
the domain name successfultrucking.com appears on Bates page 000001. (See Supplemental
Filing at ECF 511.) However, that page provides no information regarding
successfultrucking.com. Rather, it pertains to the domain name brassygal.com, which is not even
at issue in the underlying action. (See id. at ECF 6.) As another example, the index represents to
the Court that the domain name 123-movies.tv appears on Bates page 000474. (See id. at ECF
509.) However, that page displays a PayPal receipt seemingly unrelated to 123-movies.tv. (Id. at
ECF 479.)
1
to plaintiff’s ownership as of the date Defendant Doe (“defendant”) allegedly took control over the
2
Domain Names.2
3
It is not the Court’s task to scour the disorganized record to discern plaintiff’s ownership
4
over the Domain Names, or lack thereof, on the relevant date. Rather, the onus is on plaintiff to
5
do so. In light of the numerous deficiencies with respect to the factual record, the Court DENIES
6
plaintiff’s Renewed TRO Motion.
7
Accordingly, the Court ADVANCES the case management conference currently set for
8
March 19, 2018 to January 29, 2018 on the Court’s 2:00 p.m. calendar, in the Federal
9
Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Courtroom 1. Because defendant’s identity is
unknown, plaintiff is not required to file a case management statement in advance of the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
conference.
12
This Order terminates Docket Number 16.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: January 17, 2018
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
26
27
28
For example, the index represents to the Court that the domain name frenchseries.com
appears on Bates page 000132. (See Supplemental Filing at ECF 507.) While that page in fact
shows a domain renewal for that domain name, it indicates that the 1-year renewal would have
expired as of February 25, 2017, far before defendant allegedly took control over the Domain
Names.
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?