Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04400/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04400-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMAS PELHRIMOVSKY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

M STEVENS,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04400-MEJ 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On January 20, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to take early discovery to identify 

the Defendant in this case. Dkt. No. 14. On March 12, 2015, Plaintiffs requested additional time 

to locate Defendant. Dkt. No. 16. They stated that the information provided in Google’s 

subpoena response included the time date stamped IP address from which the operator of the blog 

made his infringing posts, and that they geo-located the IP addresses to a service provider in 

London. Plaintiffs stated that they would attempt to subpoena the subscriber’s indentifying 

information from the service provider. The Court granted a further continuance, scheduling a 

Case Management Conference on June 25, 2015, and setting a June 18 deadline for a case 

management statement. Dkt. No. 17. 

As there had been no further docket activity, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a status 

report by June 24, 2015. Dkt. No. 18. In their response, Plaintiffs stated they had attempted to 

obtain information informally without success. Dkt. No. 19. Plaintiffs expressed their intention to 

request a letter to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court Ministry of Justice, requesting 

that an order be issued to the non party ISP to produce the required documents. Plaintiffs declared 

they would file the request by July 8, 2015, or file a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. 

Neither has been filed. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause why this 

case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. 

Case 3:14-cv-04400-MEJ Document 20 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiffs shall file a declaration by July 23, 2015. No chambers copy is required. If a responsive 

declaration is filed, the Court shall either issue an order based on the declaration or conduct a 

hearing on August 6, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 

San Francisco, California. Notice is hereby provided to Plaintiffs that the Court may dismiss this

case without a hearing if no responsive declaration is filed. Thus, it is imperative that the Court 

receive a written response by the deadline above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04400-MEJ Document 20 Filed 07/10/15 Page 2 of 2