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)
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?