Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-166

Filing 48

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 3/14/2012 02:00 PM. Show Cause Response due by 2/29/2012. Case Management Conference set for 3/14/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 2/8/12. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DOES 1-166, Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 11-CV-03682-LHK ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 16 Plaintiff Hard Drive Productions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this matter on July 17 27, 2011. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that at least one hundred and sixty-six unknown Defendants 18 knowingly and willfully infringed its copyright by downloading and sharing its copyrighted work 19 using an online peer-to-peer file-sharing tool called BitTorrent. See id. On August 2, 2011, 20 Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for leave to take limited discovery prior to a Rule 26 21 conference. ECF No. 5. Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granted this application on August 5, 22 2011, permitting Plaintiff to serve subpoenas on certain Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to 23 obtain information identifying the Doe Defendants so that Plaintiff could complete service of 24 process on them. ECF No. 7 at 4-5. Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s order allowed Plaintiff to 25 immediately serve subpoenas on ISPs to obtain identifying information for each Doe Defendant, 26 including name, address, telephone number, email address, and media access control information. 27 Id. at 4-5. The order gave the ISPs 30 days to serve subscribers and gave subscribers 30 days from 28 1 Case No.: 11-CV-03682-LHK ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 1 the date of service in which to object to the subpoenas. Id. at 5. If the subscriber failed to object, 2 the ISP was required to produce, within 10 days, the information responsive to the subpoena to 3 Plaintiff. Id. Thus far, seven motions to quash subpoena have been filed. See ECF Nos. 9, 11, 16, 4 17, 24, 25, 42. 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a plaintiff to serve a defendant within 120 6 day after filing the complaint. A court must dismiss a case without prejudice if a plaintiff has not 7 complied with Rule 4(m), unless the plaintiff shows good cause for its failure to serve defendant. 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Plaintiff was required to file proof of service by 9 November 25, 2011. Plaintiff did not. As of today, February 7, 2012, Plaintiff has still not filed United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 proof of service as to any of the Doe Defendants. 195 days have now passed since the filing of the 11 original complaint, and 187 days have passed since Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s Order authorizing 12 expedited discovery. 13 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause by February 29, 2012, why this 14 action should not be dismissed for failure to serve the Doe Defendants as required by Rule 4(m). 15 See, e.g., Patrick Collins Inc. v. Does 1-1219, No. 10-04468-LB (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011) (Beeler, 16 M.J.) (issuing order to show cause). The Court will hold a hearing on Plaintiff’s response on 17 March 14, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. The case management conference currently set for February 15, 18 2012, is hereby continued to March 14, 2012, at 2:00 p.m., to coincide with the hearing on 19 Plaintiff’s response to this Order to Show Cause. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: February 8, 2012 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No.: 11-CV-03682-LHK ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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?