Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01652/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01652-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 3:08-cv-01652-MMC

#38584 v1

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

Dawniell Alise Zavala (CA State Bar No. 253130) 

HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP

560 Mission Street, 25th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2994 

Telephone: (415) 268-2000 

Facsimile: (415) 268-1999 

Email: dawniell.zavala@hro.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 

INTERSCOPE RECORDS; WARNER 

BROS. RECORDS INC.; UMG 

RECORDINGS, INC.; and SONY BMG 

MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

INTERSCOPE RECORDS, a California general 

partnership; WARNER BROS. RECORDS 

INC., a Delaware corporation; UMG 

RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; 

and SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, 

a Delaware general partnership, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN DOE, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 3:08-cv-01652-MMC 

Honorable Maxine M. Chesney

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

AND EXTEND TIME TO SERVE 

DEFENDANT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case 3:08-cv-01652-MMC Document 14 Filed 07/07/08 Page 1 of 4
EX PARTE APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 3:08-cv-01652-MMC

#38584 v1

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

 Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court continue the case management conference 

currently set for July 11, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. to October 10, 2008. Plaintiffs further request, pursuant 

to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 4(m) and 6(b)(1)(A), that the Court grant an 

additional 60 days – until September 23, 2008 – to serve Defendant with the Summons and 

Complaint. As set forth in greater detail below, Plaintiffs have just recently discovered the true 

identity of the Doe defendant in this case. Therefore, additional time is needed to file a First 

Amended Complaint naming Defendant personally and then to serve Defendant with process. In 

support of their request, Plaintiffs state as follows: 

 1. Plaintiffs have not requested, and the Court has not granted, any previous 

continuances of the case management conference in this matter. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not 

requested any previous extensions of the service deadline. 

 2. Plaintiffs filed the Complaint for Copyright Infringement against Defendant John Doe 

(“Defendant”) on March 27, 2008. Plaintiffs did not have sufficient identifying information to name 

the defendant in the Complaint, but were able to identify Defendant by the Internet Protocol address 

assigned by Defendant’s Internet Service Provider (“ISP”). 

 3. In order to determine Defendant’s true identity, Plaintiffs filed their Ex Parte

Application for Leave to Take Immediate Discovery on March 27, 2008, seeking the Court’s 

permission to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISP. 

 4. The Court entered an Order for Leave to take Immediate Discovery on April 24, 

2008, which was promptly served upon the ISP along with a Rule 45 subpoena. On June 11, 2008, 

the ISP responded to Plaintiffs’ subpoena, providing Plaintiffs with identifying information 

including Defendant’s name, telephone number, and address. 

 5. Upon receipt of this information from the ISP, Plaintiffs sent a letter to Defendant on 

June 13, 2008 notifying him of their claims for copyright infringement and encouraging him to make 

contact to attempt to amicably resolve this matter. In addition, Defendant contacted Plaintiffs on

June 6, 2008, before Plaintiffs received a subpoena response from the ISP, and the parties engaged a 

settlement discussion. No settlement was reached at this time. 

Case 3:08-cv-01652-MMC Document 14 Filed 07/07/08 Page 2 of 4
EX PARTE APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 3:08-cv-01652-MMC

#38584 v1

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

 6. Plaintiffs have since made follow up attempts to contact Defendant on June 23 and 

June 25, 2008 to resolve this matter, but were unsuccessful. If Plaintiffs are unable to reach a 

settlement agreement with Defendant by July 11, 2008, Plaintiffs plan to file a First Amended 

Complaint naming him individually as the defendant in this case, and then proceed to serve process 

upon him. 

 7. Given the circumstances of this case, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the case 

management conference be continued to October 10, 2008, or such other date as conveniences the 

Court. Plaintiffs also request an additional 60 days to effectuate service. 

 8. Plaintiffs submit that their efforts to give written notice to Defendant of their claims 

and subsequent efforts to resolve the case before naming him in the lawsuit constitute good cause for 

any delay in perfecting service. See Ritts v. Dealers Alliance Credit Corp., 989 F. Supp. 1475, 1479 

(N.D. Ga. 1997) (stating good cause standard for service extensions). Moreover, unlike a traditional 

case in which the defendant is known by name and efforts to serve can begin immediately after filing 

the complaint, in this case Plaintiffs first had to obtain the identity of the defendant through the 

subpoena to the ISP. This Court has discretion to enlarge the time to serve even where there is no 

good cause shown. Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 658 n. 5 (1996). 

 9. Because the copyright infringements here occurred in 2007, the three-year limitations 

period for these claims has not expired. See 17 U.S.C. § 507(b) (2000). There can thus be no 

prejudice to the Defendant from any delay in serving the Complaint. 

 10. Plaintiffs will provide the Defendant with a copy of this request and any Order 

concerning this request when service of process occurs. 

Dated: July 3, 2008 HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP 

By: __________/s/ Dawniell Alise Zavala___

DAWNIELL ALISE ZAVALA 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Case 3:08-cv-01652-MMC Document 14 Filed 07/07/08 Page 3 of 4
EX PARTE APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 3:08-cv-01652-MMC

#38584 v1

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 Good cause having been shown: 

IT IS ORDERED that the case management conference currently set for July 11, 2008 at 

10:30 a.m. be continued to October 10, 2008. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 

4(m) and 6(b)(1), Plaintiffs’ time to serve the Summons and Complaint on Defendant be extended to 

September 23, 2008. 

Dated: ___________________ By: _____________________________ 

 Honorable Maxine M. Chesney 

 United States District Judge 

any First Amended

July 7, 2008

 ^

Case 3:08-cv-01652-MMC Document 14 Filed 07/07/08 Page 4 of 4