Case3:10-cv-03647-WHA Document43 Filed05/26/11 Page1 of 6

1 D. GILL SPERLEIN (172887)

THE LAW OFFICE OF D. GILL SPERLEIN
2 584 Castro Street, Suite 879
San Francisco, California 94114
3
Telephone: (415) 404-6615
4 Facsimile: (415) 404-6616
gill@sperleinlaw.com
5
Attorney for Plaintiff
6
IO GROUP, INC.
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
10
)
11 IO GROUP, INC. d/b/a TITAN MEDIA, a ) CASE NO.: C-10-3647 (WHA)
California corporation, )
12 )
Plaintiff, )
13
vs. ) SEPARATE CASE MANAGEMENT
14 ) CONFERENCE STATEMENT
MARIUSZ PRALAT, CAROL B. )
15 PEAL, YUNSHU KANG, CHUN )
RONG ZHENG, ZHI NENG WU, ) Date: June 2, 2011
16 ) Time: 3:00 p.m.
RUBEN MORENO, HAO XU,
17 ) Ct.Rm: 9, 19th Fl.
CHIAFEN LIN, SANG YEOL KIM,
)
18 and MALGORZATA FRACZYK, )
individuals, )
19 )
Defendants, )
20 ________________________________ )
21
22
Plaintiff files this Separate Case Management Conference Statement because in
23
spite of its diligent efforts, Plaintiff only recently identified the Defendants in this matter.
24
25 On May 24, 2011, Plaintiff Amended the Complaint specifically naming a portion of the

26 Defendants previously identified as Does. Plaintiff immediately took steps to serve the
27
28

1
SEPARATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
C-10-3647 (WHA)
 Case3:10-cv-03647-WHA Document43 Filed05/26/11 Page2 of 6

1 Summons and First Amended Complaint on Defendants but it will likely take an
2
additional ten to fourteen days before Plaintiff completes service.
3
1. Jurisdiction and Service:
4
5 Jurisdiction -

6 Plaintiff alleges this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims
7
for copyright infringement and related claims pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et. seq., and
8
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over
9
10 Plaintiffs’ claims arising under the laws of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)
11 because these claims are so related to Plaintiff’s claims under Federal Law that they form
12
part of the same case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus of operative
13
14 facts.

15 Plaintiff alleges personal jurisdiction over the defendants based on the fact that six
16
of the ten defendants reside in California. The other four defendants engaged in an
17
intentional tort (copyright infringement) knowing the effect of their illegal actions would
18
19 be suffered in this jurisdiction. Thus, Plaintiff can establish personal jurisdiction based

20 on the effects doctrine.

21
Service –
22
At the outset of this case Plaintiff only knew the ip address associated with the
23
24 alleged infringing activity. Therefore, Plaintiff requested leave from the Court to
25 subpoena AT&T Internet Services to obtain the names of the subscribers to whom AT&T
26
had assigned the relevant IP address. When AT&T indicated it would take them over
27
28

2
SEPARATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
C-10-3647 (WHA)
 Case3:10-cv-03647-WHA Document43 Filed05/26/11 Page3 of 6

1 five months to respond to the subpoena1, Plaintiff requested and the Court granted an
2
extension of the time to serve the defendants until July 14, 2011.
3
AT&T finally provided the names of the subscribers on May 11, 2011. Plaintiff
4
5 immediately contacted the subscribers by letter in order to give them an opportunity to

6 deny the claims, identify any other party they may have allowed to access their Internet
7
connection, or to resolve the conflict through settlement. Understanding the Court’s
8
concern that the case has lingered, Plaintiff only gave the subscribers until May 23, 2011
9
10 to respond. When no response was forthcoming, Plaintiff amended the Complaint and
11 immediately took steps to serve the newly named Defendants. Plaintiff currently is in the
12
process of serving each of the ten Defendants and hopes to complete service within
13
14 fourteen days.

15
2. Legal Issues:
16
17 This matter consists primarily of straight forward claims of direct copyright
18 infringement against each Defendant. Plaintiff’s other claims involve areas of the law
19
which are in transition including Plaintiff’s claims of secondary liability and conspiracy
20
21 in the peer-to-peer context, negligence for allowing others to use an Internet connection

22
1
23 Plaintiff originally named 244 Doe Defendants. Based on the large number of records
Plaintiff sought and a large number of other civil subpoenas pending, AT&T indicated it
24
would be unable to respond to Plaintiff’s October 4, 2010 subpoena until March 18, 2011.
25
Later, AT&T further withheld production because an anonymous motion to dismiss was
26
pending with the Court. When, the Court ordered the Motion struck on May 10, 2011,
27
AT&T agreed to produce the requested documents.
28

3
SEPARATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
C-10-3647 (WHA)
 Case3:10-cv-03647-WHA Document43 Filed05/26/11 Page4 of 6

1 for illegal purposes, and the appropriateness of joining Defendants when a Plaintiff seeks
2
to hold them jointly and severely liable for damages.
3
3. Motions:
4
5 No motions are pending.

6 4. Amended Pleadings:
7
No Amended pleadings are currently contemplated.
8
5. Evidence Preservation:
9
10 Plaintiff is preserving all relevant evidence and has notified each Defendant of his
11 or her responsibility to do the same.
12
6. Disclosures:
13
14 No disclosures have been exchanged.

15 7. Discovery:
16
Plaintiff has taken early discovery in the form of a subpoena to AT&T to identify
17
the subscribers. The parties have not yet taken any additional discovery. Plaintiff sees
18
19 no reason to limit or modify the discovery rules.

20 8. Class Actions:
21
This matter is not a class action.
22
9. Related Cases:
23
24 Currently, there are no cases related to this matter. However, Plaintiff identified
25 additional Defendants in the original Complaint who are not named in its Amended
26
Complaint. Should Plaintiff elect to file new Complaints against any of those Defendants
27
28
in this jurisdiction, Plaintiff will identify such Complaints as related to this matter.

4
SEPARATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
C-10-3647 (WHA)
 Case3:10-cv-03647-WHA Document43 Filed05/26/11 Page5 of 6

1 10. Relief:
2
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages of $150,000 based on Defendants’ willful
3
infringement of its work Breakers, and a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants
4
5 from further infringement of Io Group’s registered works. Plaintiff also seeks an award

6 of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 505 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §
7
505.
8
11. Settlement and ADR:
9
10 Plaintiff presented each defendant with an early settlement offer which expired on
11 May 23, 2011. Parties have not had an opportunity to pursue additional settlement
12
discussions.
13
14 12. Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes:

15 Plaintiff declined to have the matter referred to a magistrate judge for all purposes.
16
13. Other References:
17
Parties do not believe the matter is suitable for any other references.
18
19 14. Narrowing of Issues:

20 The parties have not had an opportunity to enter discussions for the purpose of
21
narrowing issues.
22
15. Expedited Schedule:
23
24 Parties do not believe the matter is suitable to be handled on an expedited basis.
25 16. Scheduling:
26
Plaintiff believes it is premature to suggest scheduling dates, since Defendants
27
28
have not had an opportunity for input.

5
SEPARATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
C-10-3647 (WHA)
 Case3:10-cv-03647-WHA Document43 Filed05/26/11 Page6 of 6

1 17. Trial:
2
Plaintiff has demanded a jury trial. Plaintiff expects a trial would last three to five
3
days excluding jury selection and voir dire.
4
5 18. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons:

6 Plaintiff filed its Certification of Interested Entities.

7
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, Plaintiff certifys that the following is a complete list
8
of persons or entities that (i) have a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy
9
10 or in a party to the proceeding, or (ii) have a non-financial interest in that subject matter
11 or in a party that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding:
12
Io Group, Inc.
13
14 Bruce Lahey – majority shareholder of Io Group, Inc.

15 Brian Ashby – minority shareholder of Io Group, Inc.

16
19. Other Matters:
17
None.
18
19
20 Respectfully Submitted,
21
/s/ D. Gill Sperlein
22
Dated: May 26, 2011 ______________________________
23
24 D. Gill Sperlein
THE LAW OFFICE OF D. GILL SPERLEIN
25 Attorney for Plaintiff
26
27
28

6
SEPARATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
C-10-3647 (WHA)