Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe

Filing 14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE and ORDER denying 26 Motion to Continue by Judge Lucy H. Koh (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2013)

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

INGENUITY 13 LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-04445-LHK

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Complaint in this case was filed almost 5 months ago on August 23, 2012. Plaintiff
identified the Defendant as John Doe.
On September 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Take Limited Discovery Prior

21

to Rule 26(f) Conference in order to discover the name of the John Doe Defendant. ECF No. 8.

22

Magistrate Judge Grewal granted Plaintiff’s motion on October 2, 2012. ECF No. 10. Judge

23

Grewal’s order allowed Plaintiff to immediately serve a subpoena on Doe’s ISP to obtain

24

information sufficient to identify Doe, including name, address, telephone number, and email

25

address. Id. at 2. The order gave the ISP 30 days to serve Doe and gave both the ISP and Doe 30

26

days from the date of service in which to object to the subpoena. Id. at 2-3. If both Doe and the

27

ISP failed to object, the ISP was required to produce, within 10 days, the information responsive to

28

the subpoena to Plaintiff. Id. Thus, under Judge Grewal’s order, Plaintiff should have received the
1
Case No.: 12-CV-04445
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

information sought by the subpoena within 70 days of October 2, 2012. 70 days from October 2,

2

2012 is December 11, 2012.

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a plaintiff to serve a defendant within 120

4

day after it files the complaint. A court must dismiss a case without prejudice if a plaintiff has not

5

complied with Rule 4(m), unless the plaintiff shows good cause for its failure to serve defendant.

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 141 days have passed since the filing of the original complaint, and 31 days

7

have passed since December 11, 2012, the date by which Plaintiff should have received the

8

information sought by its subpoena. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not amended the pleadings to

9

identify the Doe Defendant nor has Plaintiff served Defendant.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

In Plaintiff’s most recent case management statement, Plaintiff states that “AT&T [the ISP]

11

recently responded to the subpoena, and Plaintiff has been attempting to initiate contact with the

12

subscriber. Though such attempts have been unsuccessful thus far, Plaintiff’s investigation is

13

ongoing, and Plaintiff hopes to name and serve the infringer in this case in the near future.” ECF

14

No. 12 at 2. Plaintiff does not explain why Plaintiff has not amended the pleadings to name the

15

Defendant if AT&T has already responded to the subpoena. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS

16

Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to serve the Doe

17

Defendant as required by Rule 4(m) by January 18, 2013. See, e.g., Patrick Collins Inc. v. Does 1-

18

1219, No. 10-04468-LB (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011) (Beeler, M.J.) (issuing order to show cause).

19

The Court will hold a hearing on Plaintiff’s response on January 23, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.

20

Plaintiff’s case management conference set for January 16, 2013 is VACATED.

21

Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s request for a continuance of the January 16

22

case management conference. ECF No. 13.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: January 11, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-04445
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE