TMT Investments PLC et al v. Doe, 1-10

Filing 18

Order by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 17 Request to Reschedule Show-Cause Hearing. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2015)

Download PDF
E-Filed 12/11/15 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TMT INVESTMENTS PLC, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 JOHN DOE, Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE SHOW-CAUSE HEARING v. 9 10 Case No. 14-cv-05323-HRL Re: Dkt. No. 17 12 Plaintiffs TMT Investments PLC, German Kaplun, and Alexander Morgulchik sued ten 13 anonymous John Does for defamation, invasion of privacy, interference with business relations, 14 and trademark infringement. Plaintiffs based their claims on the contents of anonymous online 15 blogs. 16 discovery of Defendants’ identities. The court denied the application without prejudice for failure 17 to show good cause. Plaintiffs did not reapply for expedited discovery and did not serve any 18 defendants. The court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for 19 failure to prosecute. The court scheduled a show-cause hearing for July 28, 2015, but Plaintiffs 20 did not appear for the hearing. The court continued the hearing to August 25, 2015 and Plaintiffs 21 once again failed to appear. On August 31, 2015 the court dismissed the case without prejudice 22 for failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs expressly consented to magistrate jurisdiction and applied for expedited 23 Approximately one month later Plaintiffs filed a request to reschedule the show-cause 24 hearing. Plaintiffs explain that counsel failed to appear for the hearing on August 25 because 25 counsel forgot to bring her driver’s license to court, and so counsel was not permitted past the 26 security checkpoint on the ground floor of the courthouse. Counsel procured her driver’s license 27 and returned but she had already missed the hearing by that time. Counsel asserts that she did not 28 timely inform the court she would be late because she was focused on quickly returning to her 1 office, finding her driver’s license, and returning to the courthouse. 2 Regardless, Plaintiffs’ request to reschedule the show-cause hearing is far from timely and 3 granting that request would serve no purpose at this point. The hearing was scheduled, and then 4 continued, so that Plaintiffs might explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to 5 prosecute. Plaintiffs might have filed this request shortly after Plaintiffs failed to appear at the 6 August 25 hearing, and the court might have granted the request under those circumstances, but 7 instead Plaintiffs filed nothing for 6 days and the court dismissed the case. This case had already 8 been closed for more than three weeks when Plaintiffs filed this request to reschedule the show- 9 cause hearing. It would serve no purpose to reschedule a hearing on whether to close a case when 10 the case is already closed. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 The request is denied as procedurally improper. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: 12/11/15 14 ________________________ HOWARD R. LLOYD United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 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?