Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01674/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01674-1/pdf.json

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

---

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER 

Case No. 3:08-cv-01674-JSW 

#40112 v1 saf

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 Zavala (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 

E-mail: dawniell.zavala@hro.com 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

ARISTA RECORDS LLC; UMG 

RECORDINGS, INC.; INTERSCOPE 

RECORDS; and ELEKTRA 

ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

ARISTA RECORDS LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company; UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a 

Delaware corporation; INTERSCOPE RECORDS, 

a California general partnership; and ELEKTRA 

ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC., a Delaware 

corporation, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JOSH THORPE,

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:08-cv-01674-JSW 

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

EFFECTUATE SERVICE AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case 3:08-cv-01674-JSW Document 18 Filed 09/22/2008 Page 1 of 4 Case 3:08-cv-01674-JSW Document 19 Filed 09/23/08 Page 1 of 4
1

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER 

Case No. 3:08-cv-01674-JSW 

#40112 v1 saf

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 

Pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 6(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs 

ask this Court for an additional 60 days to serve Defendant with the Summons and Amended 

Complaint. As further explained below in support of their request, Plaintiffs state as follows: 

1. The current deadline for service of process is September 22, 2008 having been 

extended once previously while Defendant was a Doe defendant. 

2. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Copyright Infringement against Defendant 

John Doe on March 27, 2008. Plaintiffs did not have sufficient identifying information to name 

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

assigned to Defendant by Defendant’s Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) – in this case, California 

State University, Monterey Bay. 

3. In order to determine the true name and identity of the Doe defendant, Plaintiffs 

filed their Application for Leave to Take Immediate Discovery on March 27, 2008, requesting 

that the Court to enter an Order allowing Plaintiffs to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISP. 

4. The Court entered an Order for Leave to take Immediate Discovery on May 19, 

2008 which was promptly served upon the ISP along with a Rule 45 subpoena. 

5. On June 23, 2008, the ISP identified Josh Thorpe as the infringer and Plaintiffs 

promptly sent formal written notice of their claim to Mr. Thorpe and requested that he contact 

them so that settlement efforts could commence. 

6. Plaintiffs thereafter received a call from Mr. Thorpe and then from an attorney on 

his behalf. (The attorney no longer represents Mr. Thorpe). The parties engaged in settlement 

efforts which unfortunately have not been successful. Accordingly, on this date Plaintiffs filed 

an amended complaint naming Mr. Thorpe individually as a defendant and have engaged a 

process serving company to serve Mr. Thorpe once the Summons is issued. 

7. It appears that there is not a sufficient amount of time prior to the service deadline 

for Plaintiffs to serve Defendant with the Summons and Amended Complaint. 

8. Given the circumstances of this case, Plaintiffs respectfully request an additional 

60 days to effectuate service. 

9. Plaintiffs’ filing of their Application for Leave to Take Immediate Discovery 

demonstrates “good cause” under Rule 4 for an extension of time for service. See, e.g.,

Case 3:08-cv-01674-JSW Document 18 Filed 09/22/2008 Page 2 of 4 Case 3:08-cv-01674-JSW Document 19 Filed 09/23/08 Page 2 of 4
2

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER 

Case No. 3:08-cv-01674-JSW 

#40112 v1 saf

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 

Matasareanu v. Williams, 183 F.R.D. 242, 245-46 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (stating good cause standard 

for service extensions); Ritts v. Dealers Alliance Credit Corp., 989 F. Supp. 1475, 1479 (N.D. 

Ga. 1997) (same). Plaintiffs further submit that their attempts to resolve the case without further 

litigation constitute good cause for the delay in perfecting service. Plaintiffs acted in good faith 

to try to settle this matter with Mr. Thorpe without naming him in the suit as well as attempting 

to avoid the cost of further litigation for both parties. 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 must 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). 

10. 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. 

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

concerning this request when service of process occurs. 

Dated: September 22, 2008 HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP 

 By _/s/ Dawniell Zavala_ 

 DAWNIELL ZAVALA 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

ARISTA RECORDS LLC; UMG 

RECORDINGS, INC.; INTERSCOPE 

RECORDS; and ELEKTRA 

ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC. 

Case 3:08-cv-01674-JSW Document 18 Filed 09/22/2008 Page 3 of 4 Case 3:08-cv-01674-JSW Document 19 Filed 09/23/08 Page 3 of 4
3

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER 

Case No. 3:08-cv-01674-JSW 

#40112 v1 saf

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, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 4(m) and 

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

extended for 60 days from the date of this Order. 

Dated: ___________________ By: _____________________________ 

 Honorable James Larson 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-01674-JSW Document 18 Filed 09/22/2008 Page 4 of 4

Jeffrey S. White September 23, 2008

Case 3:08-cv-01674-JSW Document 19 Filed 09/23/08 Page 4 of 4