Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05827/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05827-0/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

In re Malibu Media BitTorrent Copyright

Infringement Litigation

No. C 16-05737 WHA

No. C 16-05738 WHA

No. C 16-05739 WHA

No. C 16-05823 WHA

No. C 16-05824 WHA

No. C 16-05825 WHA

No. C 16-05826 WHA

No. C 16-05827 WHA

No. C 16-05828 WHA

No. C 16-05829 WHA

No. C 16-05843 WHA

No. C 16-05845 WHA

No. C 16-05847 WHA

No. C 16-05848 WHA

No. C 16-05849 WHA

No. C 16-05850 WHA

No. C 16-05855 WHA

No. C 16-05920 WHA

No. C 16-05921 WHA

No. C 16-05922 WHA

No. C 16-05923 WHA

No. C 16-05925 WHA

No. C 16-05926 WHA

No. C 16-05927 WHA

No. C 16-05970 WHA

No. C 16-05972 WHA

No. C 16-05973 WHA

No. C 16-05974 WHA

No. C 16-05975 WHA

No. C 16-05976 WHA

No. C 16-05977 WHA

No. C 16-06106 WHA

No. C 16-06107 WHA

No. C 16-06108 WHA

No. C 16-06109 WHA

No. C 16-06110 WHA

No. C 16-06111 WHA

No. C 16-06112 WHA

No. C 16-06141 WHA

Case 3:16-cv-05827-WHA Document 7 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 3
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

 /

No. C 16-06143 WHA

No. C 16-06144 WHA

No. C 16-06146 WHA

No. C 16-06147 WHA

No. C 16-06155 WHA

No. C 16-06160 WHA

No. C 16-06239 WHA

No. C 16-06240 WHA

No. C 16-06241 WHA

No. C 16-06242 WHA

No. C 16-06243 WHA

No. C 16-06245 WHA

No. C 16-06247 WHA

No. C 16-06249 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A

THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA

In each of the above-captioned cases, plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC, seeks leave to serve

a third-party subpoena on the defendant’s Internet service provider for the purpose of obtaining

each defendant’s personal information, since the defendants are currently only identifiable by

the Internet Protocol address of the connection used to commit the alleged infringement. 

Malibu Media then looked up each defendant’s IP address in a database maintained at

maxmind.com to determine the location of the given IP address and the service provider that

assigned that IP address. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a sworn declaration averring “from the

lawsuits Malibu Media has filed in California, Maxmind’s geolocation data has always been

100% accurate to the state level, 100% accurate at identifying the ISP and has predicted the

correct district 146 out of 147 times” (Mosesi Decl. ¶ 15). Attorney Mosesi appended an

spreadsheet to back up that data, but the spreadsheet omitted dozens of cases filed in this district

alone. 

It appears those cases were omitted because Malibu Media never received a response

from the Internet service provider in those cases, but the failure to address so many cases in this

Case 3:16-cv-05827-WHA Document 7 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

district (and presumably elsewhere in California) casts significant doubt on counsel’s personal

knowledge of the accuracy of the Maxmind database. Maxmind’s own statements of its

accuracy, restated in counsel’s declaration, are hearsay. Malibu Media has failed to provide

sworn evidence to support the reliability of the Maxmind database, which is necessary to show

that this Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the defendants and that venue is proper

here. Accordingly, Malibu Media’s motions are DENIED.

This is without prejudice to a renewed motion supported by a sworn accounting of the

accuracy of Maxmind (or some other database) for each and every case filed by Malibu Media

in this district.

Counsel is directed not to lodge chambers copies of any new motions to serve a thirdparty subpoena.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-05827-WHA Document 7 Filed 12/06/16 Page 3 of 3