Timeless Production FZ LLC v. VieConnect
- Wise
- 5:25-cv-03639
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Timeless Production v. VieConnect, Judge Wise denied without prejudice alternative service because Timeless had not shown repeated efforts or adequate notice.
Timeless Production FZ LLC’s request to serve Tran Van Ha, Pham Tien Dong, Vieconnect Vietnam Technology and Services Investment Company Limited, and Does 1–10 through alternative methods was denied without prejudice. The preliminary-injunction hearing and case-management conference were also rescheduled.
What happened
In Timeless Production FZ LLC v. VieConnect, Timeless alleged that defendants in Vietnam copied and distributed its copyrighted videos and sought permission to serve them through alternative methods.
The court found that Timeless had made only one unsuccessful attempt to serve defendants by mail, had not shown that they were evading service, and had proposed several unclear methods. Timeless also did not provide enough evidence that the email addresses and WhatsApp numbers would reliably notify all defendants.
Judge Noél Wise denied Timeless’s motion for alternative service without prejudice. The court vacated and reset the preliminary-injunction hearing and continued the case-management conference to September 10, 2025, to allow more time for service.
The detailed version
- Timeless Production FZ LLC v. VieConnect · No. 5:25-cv-03639
- Wise
- June 17, 2025
Background
Timeless Production FZ LLC alleged that Tran Van Ha, Pham Tien Dong, Vieconnect Vietnam Technology and Services Investment Company Limited, and Does 1–10 copied, displayed, and distributed Timeless’s copyrighted videos and used copyrighted artwork as a video thumbnail without authorization. Timeless also alleged that the defendants submitted counternotices after Timeless sent three Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices to YouTube.
The defendants were described as being in Vietnam. Timeless asked the court to allow alternative service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), including service by email, YouTube direct messaging, Vieconnect’s online contact portal, WhatsApp, and possibly a legal-notice website. The court had previously said Timeless could renew its request after unsuccessful efforts to serve the defendants under the Hague Convention or upon a showing of good cause.
Legal standard
Rule 4(f)(3) allows a court to direct an alternative method for serving an individual in a foreign country when an international agreement does not prohibit that method. The court explained that it must determine whether the method is permitted, whether the circumstances require the court’s intervention, and whether the method is reasonably calculated to notify the defendants of the case and give them an opportunity to respond. Because the defendants were in Vietnam, the court stated that service generally had to comply with the Hague Convention.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Timeless had not shown that alternative service was necessary. Timeless had made one attempt to serve the defendants by mail, but the packages were not delivered. The court concluded that one failed attempt did not establish that the defendants were evading service and did not amount to the repeated, concerted efforts courts generally require before permitting alternative service.
The court also found that the requested methods were unclear. The motion’s request, supporting memorandum, and proposed order referred to different combinations of email, YouTube messaging, the online contact portal, WhatsApp, and website posting. Because Timeless did not identify a specific method and explain why that method would satisfy due process, the court could not evaluate the request.
Even assuming Timeless sought service only by email and WhatsApp, the court found insufficient evidence that those methods would reliably notify the defendants. The record did not show that the defendants had directly communicated with Timeless through those channels, as opposed to communicating with YouTube and having counternotices forwarded to Timeless. The available email address and phone number appeared in counternotices associated with Pham Tien Dong, but the court found no reliable information showing that the contact information was consistently used by Pham or by the other defendants. Timeless also did not disclose the investigation it said had confirmed that the contact information remained active or support those factual assertions with a declaration, affidavit, or record citations.
The court further stated that, even if the contact information were credible, it might support alternative service only on Pham Tien Dong, not on Vieconnect or Tran Van Ha. The proposed order also failed to identify the actual email addresses or telephone numbers to be used and instead referred to information that might later appear in subpoena responses. The court stated that it would not order service through undisclosed addresses or telephone numbers.
Disposition
The court DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Timeless’s motion for alternative service. It stated that alternative service might be warranted on a different record, but Timeless could not bypass the Hague Convention or other usual service methods without a sufficient reason. The court vacated the preliminary-injunction hearing scheduled for June 18, 2025, and reset it for September 10, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. It also continued the case-management conference from August 19, 2025, to September 10, 2025, and set August 27, 2025, as the deadline for a joint case-management statement.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.