Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04246/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04246-5/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP

ADDRESS 24.6.62.70,

Defendant. /

No. C 15-04246 WHA

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR EXTENSION AND

DISMISSING CASE FOR

FAILURE TO TIMELY

SERVE DEFENDANT

Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC commenced this copyright infringement action on

September 17, 2015. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the deadline to effectuate service was January 15,

2016. On October 11, Malibu Media filed a motion for leave to serve defendant’s Internet

provider with a subpoena for the purpose of receiving defendant’s identifying information. An

order granted that motion on October 18 (Dkt. No. 11). That order also required Malibu Media

to file any documents that included defendant’s identifying information under seal and

prohibited Malibu Media from disclosing that information or using it for any purpose other than

protecting its rights as set forth in the complaint. 

Malibu Media received Comcast’s response on December 10. Malibu Media had thirtysix days within which to move to file under seal an amended complaint and proposed summons

including defendant’s identifying information and to effectuate service once it received the

unredacted summons. On January 15, Malibu Media filed its sealing motion and sought an

extension of the deadline to effectuate service, which lapsed that day (Dkt. Nos. 16–17). On

Case 3:15-cv-04246-WHA Document 24 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

January 19, an order granted Malibu Media’s sealing motion and extended the deadline to

effectuate service to January 29, 2016 (Dkt. No. 18). The summons issued the same day

(Dkt. No. 19).

On January 29, Malibu Media again sought to extend the deadline to effectuate service

noting that counsel had not yet received the unredacted summons by mail. An order extended

the deadline to February 16 (Dkt. No. 21). On February 9, counsel for plaintiff contacted the

Clerk’s Office, noting that they had not received the unredacted summons by mail, and the

Clerk reissued the summons. Malibu Media received the unredacted summons on February 12

and requested a third extension on February 16 (Dkt. No. 23).

Even if the unredacted summons was not mailed to Malibu Media on January 19, which

seems unlikely, counsel have not acted diligently and have filed the sealing motion and

requested extensions at the last minute. Plaintiff’s counsel (or any associated counsel of record)

could have gone in person to the Clerk’s Office on the 16th floor of 450 Golden Gate Ave., San

Francisco, to retrieve the unredacted summons thereby avoiding any delays caused by the mail. 

Counsel elected not to do so. (To be clear, in order to protect the identity of the defendants in

Malibu Media’s numerous ongoing actions in this district, unredacted summonses will only be

issued to counsel that have appeared in the given action, not to any third parties such as

messengers.)

Malibu Media’s failure to timely serve the defendant in this action is the result of flawed

follow-through on counsel’s part. Malibu Media’s third request for an extension is DENIED,

and this action is DISMISSED for failure to timely serve the defendant. The Clerk shall please

CLOSE THE FILE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-04246-WHA Document 24 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 2