You're viewing Docket Item 14 from the case Malibu Media LLC v. John Does. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:12-cv-04650-RGK-SS Document 14 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:159

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.

Title

2:12-cv-01642-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-03614-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-03615-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-03617-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-03619-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-03620-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-03621-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-03622-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-03623-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-04649-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-04650-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-04651-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-04652-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-04653-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-01647-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-04654-RGK-SS;
8:12-cv-00652-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-04656-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-04657-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-04658-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-04660-RGK-SS; 2:12-cv-04661-RGK-SS;
2:12-cv-04662-RGK-SS; 8:12-cv-00647-RGK-SS;
8:12-cv-00649-RGK-SS; 8:12-cv-00650-RGK-SS;
8:12-cv-00651-RGK-SS;
MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOES 1-10

Date

January 17, 2013

Present: The
Honorable

R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

S. Williams (not present)

Deputy Clerk

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Not Present

Not Reported

N/A

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause as to Why Remaining
Defendants Should Not be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 4(m)

From February 27, 2012 to June 27, 2012, Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed

thirty-three separate lawsuits against various groups of John Doe Defendants (collectively
“Defendants”) for claims of copyright infringement. In each lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants acting in concert together, used the BitTorrent protocol, an internet peer-to-peer
file sharing network, to unlawfully reproduce and distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted works in
violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Given the similarity of Plaintiff’s
allegations, the thirty-three cases were transferred to this Court. In its July 10, 2012 Case
Management Order, the Court vacated any orders permitting Plaintiff leave to conduct early
discovery to determine Defendants’ identities. On August 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a renewed
motion for leave to conduct early discovery. (DE 28.)

On October 10, 2012, the Court denied early discovery. (DE 32.) It also dismissed

without prejudice claims against all Defendants, except for individuals designated as “John

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:12-cv-04650-RGK-SS Document 14 Filed 01/17/13 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:160

Doe 1.” Id. After the October 10 Order, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed several of the original
cases, however, the above-captioned cases remained. To this date, no defendants listed as
“John Doe 1” have been served in any of the remaining cases.

Under Federal Rule Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 4(m), the summons and Complaint must be

served upon defendants within 120 days from the date of the filing of the Complaint. The time
limit for service in all these cases has well passed. To this date, Plaintiff has failed to file a
request for additional time to comply with Rule 4(m).

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why these cases should not be dismissed

for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 4(m) by no later than January 24, 2013.
Plaintiff shall limit its response to no more than ten pages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

:

Initials of
Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2