Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Doe-68.7.69.57
| Criminal Productions, Inc. |
| Doe-68.7.69.57 |
| 3:2016cv02353 |
| September 19, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| Los Angeles |
| Mitchell D. Dembin |
| Dana M. Sabraw |
| Copyrights |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 0101 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
9
ORDER granting 8 Motion for Reconsideration. As provided herein, Plaintiff's Motion for Early Discovery now is GRANTED: 1. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena, pursuant to and compliant with the procedures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, on Cox Comm unications seeking only the name and address of the subscriber assigned to the subject IP address for the relevant time period. 2.The subpoena must provide at least forty-five (45) calendar days from service to production. Cox Communications may s eek to quash or modify the subpoena as provided at Rule 45(d)(3). 3.Cox Communications shall notify its subscriber, no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the subpoena, that his or her identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. The subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall then have thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the notice to seek a protective order, to move to quash or modify the subpoena or file any other responsive pleading. 4.Plaintiff shall ser ve a copy of this Order with the subpoena upon Cox Communications. Cox Communications, in turn, must provide a copy of this Order along with the required notice to the subscriber whose identity is sought pursuant to this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/17/16. (Dembin, Mitchell)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER denying 6 Second Ex Parte Motion to Expedite Discovery. As provided herein, having again not presented evidence regarding when any geolocation efforts were performed which suggest that the subscriber of the subject Internet Protocol address at the time of allegedly infringing activity likely is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court, as required by law, this second motion for expedited discovery is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/3/16. (Dembin, Mitchell)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER denying without prejudice 4 Ex Parte MOTION for Discovery by Criminal Productions, Inc. As provided herein, Plaintiff may renew this motion providing additional information and, if necessary, argument regarding the date that the asserted geolocation of the suspect Internet Protocol address occurred. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 9/26/16. (Dembin, Mitchell)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Doe-68.7.69.57 | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Criminal Productions, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | James Stephen Davis |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Doe-68.7.69.57 | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
