Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04219/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04219-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No.: 12-CV-04219-LHK

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

AF HOLDINGS LLC,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 12-04219

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On August 9, 2012, Plaintiff AF Holdings LLC (“AFH”) filed its original complaint in this 

matter, which was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Laporte. ECF No. 1. On August 24, 

2012, AFH filed an ex parte application for leave to take limited discovery prior to a Rule 26 

conference. ECF No. 5. The case was subsequently reassigned to Judge Koh as the presiding 

judge and Magistrate Judge Grewal as the referral judge. On November 1, 2012, AFH filed a

renewed ex parte application for leave to take limited discovery prior to a Rule 26 conference. 

ECF No. 9. Magistrate Judge Grewal granted this renewed application on November 9, 2012, 

permitting AFH to serve a subpoena on the Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) providing Doe’s 

internet access to obtain information identifying the Doe Defendant so that AFH could complete 

service of process on him. ECF No. 10. Judge Grewal’s order allowed AFH to immediately serve 

a subpoena on Doe’s ISP to obtain identifying information for Doe, including name, address, 

telephone number, and email address. Id. at 2. The order gave the ISP 30 days to serve Doe and 

Case 5:12-cv-04219-LHK Document 12 Filed 01/01/13 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 12-CV-04219-LHK

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

For the Northern District of California

gave both the ISP and Doe 30 days from the date of service in which to object to the subpoena. Id. 

at 2-3. If both Doe and the ISP failed to object, the ISP was required to produce, within 10 days,

the information responsive to the subpoena to AFH. Id. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a plaintiff to serve a defendant within 120 

day after it files the complaint. A court must dismiss a case without prejudice if a plaintiff has not 

complied with Rule 4(m), unless the plaintiff shows good cause for its failure to serve defendant. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 145 days have passed since the filing of the original complaint and 53 days 

have passed since the issuance of Judge Grewal’s expedited discovery order, but no proof of 

service has been filed.

Under Rule 4(m), AFH was required to have filed proof of service by December 7, 2012. 

AFH did not. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS AFH to show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed for failure to serve the Doe Defendant as required by Rule 4(m) by January 11, 2013. 

See, e.g., Patrick Collins Inc. v. Does 1-1219, No. 10-04468-LB (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011) (Beeler, 

M.J.) (issuing order to show cause). The Court will hold a hearing on AFH’s response on January

16, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., in conjunction with the case management conference set for that date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 1, 2013 _________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:12-cv-04219-LHK Document 12 Filed 01/01/13 Page 2 of 2