| Court: | cacd |
| Docket #: | 2:12-cv-04661 |
| Case Name: | Malibu Media LLC v. John Does |
| PACER case #: | 533395 |
| Date filed: | 2012-05-29 |
| Assigned to: | Judge R. Gary Klausner |
| Referred to: | Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal |
| Case Cause: | 17:501 Copyright Infringement |
| Nature of Suit: | 820 Copyright |
| Jury Demand: | Plaintiff |
| Jurisdiction: | Federal Question |
| Represented Party | Attorney & Contact Info |
| Malibu Media LLC Plaintiff a California limited liability company |
Leemore Kushner |
| John Does Defendant 1 through 10 |
| Date Filed | Document # | Attachment # | Short Description | Long Description | Upload date | SHA1 hash |
| 2012-05-29 | 1 | 0 | COMPLAINT against Defendant John Does 1 through 10. Case assigned to Judge Michael W Fitzgerald for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm.(Filing fee $ 350 PAID.) Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiff Malibu Media LLC. [Summons not issued on 5/29/2012.] (et) (ds). (Entered: 05/30/2012) | |||
| 2012-05-29 | 2 | 0 | CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Malibu Media LLC. (et) (mg). (Entered: 05/30/2012) | |||
| 2012-05-29 | 3 | 0 | REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION regarding a copyright (Initial Notification) filed by Malibu Media LLC. (et) (Entered: 05/30/2012) | |||
| 2012-05-29 | 4 | 0 | NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) (Entered: 05/30/2012) | |||
| 2012-06-04 | 5 | 0 | EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference filed by Plaintiff Malibu Media LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Tobias Fieser, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Declaration of Leemore Kushner, # 5 Proposed Order)(Kushner, Leemore) (Entered: 06/04/2012) | |||
| 2012-06-05 | 6 | 0 | ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08-05 -Related Case- filed. Related Case No: CV 12-04656 GAF(MRWx). Case transferred from Judge Michael W Fitzgerald and Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm to Judge Gary A. Feess and Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV 12-04661 GAF(MRWx).Signed by Judge Gary A. Feess (rn) (Entered: 06/05/2012) | |||
| 2012-06-06 | 7 | 0 | ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THIRD PARTYSUBPOENAS PRIOR TO A RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (See Order for further details) NOTE SEPARATE COURT ORDER REGARDING PERIODIC STATUS REPORTS ON EARLY DISCOVERY. 5 Ex Parte Application for Leave (vm) (Main Document 7 replaced on 6/7/2012) (vm). (Entered: 06/06/2012) | |||
| 2012-06-06 | 8 | 0 | MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: REPORT OF EARLY DISCOVERY by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (See Minute Order for further details) re: Order on Ex Parte Application for Leave re Discovery Matter, 7 . (vm) (Entered: 06/06/2012) | |||
| 2012-07-10 | 9 | 0 | ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08-05 -Related Case- filed. Related Case No: CV 12-01642 RGK(SSx). Case transferred from Judge Gary A. Feess and Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner to Judge R. Gary Klausner and Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV 12-04661 RGK(SSx).Signed by Judge R. Gary Klausner (rn) (Entered: 07/10/2012) | |||
| 2012-07-10 | 10 | 0 | ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Response to Order to Show Cause due by 7/23/2012. (rne) (Entered: 07/10/2012) | 2012-07-11 07:28:52 | efdbf7637c1f6df7c113548b8f91d8ebd78dde5f | |
| 2012-07-24 | 11 | 0 | MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff is to submit further briefing by 7/27/2012. (vdr) (Entered: 07/24/2012) | |||
| 2012-07-24 | 12 | 0 | MINUTE IN CHAMBERS ORDER Request for Further Briefing, Case ManagementOrder, and Motion for Sanction in 2:12-cv-03614 (DE 10) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: There are two categories of Defendants in these related cases: Defendants who are currently unrepresented and Defendants who are represented by The Pietz Law Firm. The Court will discuss the pending issues as to each group of Defendants separately. First, as to the unrepresented Defendants, the Court requests further briefing from the Plaintiff as to the issue of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff responded to the Courts Order to Show Cause by submitting information about the accuracy of its IP address tracking in other federal cases. However, this data is unreliable as Plaintiff has not presented the Court with information about how it selected the defendants in those cases or the methods it used to track their location. Further, the success of Plaintiffs methods in other cases is not necessarily indicative of the likelihood that this Court has personal jurisdiction over of the present unrepresented Defendants. Plaintiff is to submit further briefing, of no more than ten pages by Friday, July 27, 2012 addressing the geo locating tools or other relevant technology it has used in the present cases to identify the location of the IP addresses belonging to the unrepresented Defendants and the accuracy and reliability of such technology. The Court will not take further steps as to these unrepresented Defendants until it has resolved the issue of personal jurisdiction. Second, as to the represented Defendants, these Defendants have waived any objections to personal jurisdiction. (See Brief re: Jurisdiction and Sanctions for Related Case Rule Violations, 1: 6-10.) Further, John Doe Number 5 in 2:12-cv-03614 requests that the Court consider its previously filed Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff has opposed that Motion and Defendant makes reply arguments in its response to the Order to Show Cause. Therefore, that Motion is deemed submitted. Upon full consideration of the arguments and evidence submitted in that case, the Court finds insufficient good cause to impose sanctions and hereby denies the Motion for Sanctions at Docket Entry 10 in 2:12-cv-03614. Because this Courts July 10, 2012 Case Management Order vacated any subpoenas that had previously been issued, Plaintiff may only proceed with discovery as to the represented Defendants upon further motion to the Court.(shb) (Entered: 07/24/2012) |