Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04853/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04853-3/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. 5:07-cv-04853-HRL 

#35960 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 

Matthew Franklin Jaksa (CA State Bar No. 248072) 

HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP

560 Mission Street, 25th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2994 

Telephone: (415) 268-2000 

Facsimile: (415) 268-1999 

Email: matt.jaksa@hro.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 

WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC.; SONY 

BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT; UMG 

RECORDINGS, INC.; and VIRGIN 

RECORDS AMERICA, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., a Delaware 

corporation; SONY BMG MUSIC 

ENTERTAINMENT, a Delaware general 

partnership; UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a 

Delaware corporation; and VIRGIN RECORDS 

AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CASEY MELINDA LENTZ, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 5:07-CV-04853-HRL 

Honorable Howard R. Lloyd 

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND 

TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT AND 

CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND [P

AMENDED 

ROPOSED] ORDER 

ORDER *E-filed 3/10/08*

Case 5:07-cv-04853-HRL Document 17 Filed 03/10/08 Page 1 of 5
 1 

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 5:07-cv-04853-HRL 

#35960 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, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 4(m) 

and 6(b)(1)(A), that the Court grant an additional 90 days to serve Defendant Casey Melinda Lentz 

(“Defendant”) with the Summons and Complaint. Plaintiffs also request that the case management 

conference be rescheduled from April 8, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. to July 8, 2008, in order to allow 

adequate time for Plaintiffs to locate and serve Defendant prior to the conference. As further 

explained below, Plaintiffs have attempted to serve Defendant at two locations, but have so far have 

been unable to locate or serve her. In support of their request, Plaintiffs state as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint for Copyright Infringement against a 

John Doe defendant on September 20, 2007. In order to determine the Doe defendant’s true name 

and identity, Plaintiffs filed their Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take Immediate Discovery on 

September 20, 2007, requesting that the Court enter an order allowing Plaintiffs to serve a Rule 45 

subpoena on Defendant’s Internet Service Provider – here, San Francisco State University (“SFSU”). 

2. The Court entered an Order for Leave to take Immediate Discovery on 

October 3, 2007, which was served upon SFSU along with a Rule 45 subpoena. On November 16, 

2007, SFSU responded to Plaintiffs’ subpoena, identifying the defendant, Casey Melinda Lentz. 

3. Plaintiffs then sent a letter to Ms. Lentz notifying her of their claims for 

copyright infringement and encouraging her to make contact to attempt to amicably resolve this 

matter. Despite follow-up attempts to contact Ms. Lentz, Plaintiffs were unable to reach Ms. Lentz 

and resolve the matter. 

4. Accordingly, on February 8, 2008, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended 

Complaint naming Ms. Lentz personally as the defendant. Plaintiffs promptly forwarded the 

Summons and Complaint to the process server. 

5. To date, Plaintiffs have been unable to serve Defendant. Plaintiffs have made 

multiple service attempts at Defendant’s university address, and have also attempted service at 

Defendant’s permanent address. See Affidavit of Reasonable Diligence of Andy Esquer (“Esquer 

Aff.”); Affidavit of Reasonable Diligence of K. Wysong (“Wysong Aff.”), filed herewith. However, 

Case 5:07-cv-04853-HRL Document 17 Filed 03/10/08 Page 2 of 5
 2 

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 5:07-cv-04853-HRL 

#35960 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 

it appears Defendant can no longer be found at either address. See Esquer Aff. at 2; Wysong Aff. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are conducting a further investigation to attempt to locate Defendant and 

serve her with process. 

6. The current deadline for service of process is March 3, 2008. The service 

deadline was extended once (while this was still a Doe case) by the Court’s Order of January 22, 

2008, granting in part Plaintiffs’ previous request for a service extension. Given the circumstances 

of this case, Plaintiffs respectfully request an additional 90 days to effectuate service so that 

Plaintiffs may continue to attempt to locate Defendant and effectuate service. 

7. The initial case management conference is set for April 8, 2008, at 1:30 p.m., 

as continued by the Court’s Order of January 4, 2008, while this case was still in the Doe stage. So 

that Plaintiffs can first locate and serve Defendant, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court 

continue the case management conference to July 8, 2008, or such other date as conveniences the 

Court. 

8. Plaintiffs submit that good cause exists for an extension of time to serve 

defendant. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(m) (“[I]f the plaintiff shows good cause for 

the failure [to serve the defendant], the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate 

period.”); Matasareanu v. Williams, 183 F.R.D. 242, 245-46 (C.D. Cal. 1998). 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). First, unlike a traditional case in which the defendant 

is known by name and efforts to serve can begin immediately after filing a complaint, in this case 

Plaintiffs first had to obtain Defendant’s identity through the subpoena to SFSU. Second, once 

Plaintiffs discovered Defendant’s identity, Plaintiffs sent Defendant written notice of their claims, 

and attempted in good faith to contact Defendant and resolve the matter without causing further 

litigation costs for both parties and potentially damaging Defendant’s credit by naming her in the 

suit. Finally, once Defendant was named in the suit, Plaintiffs made diligent attempts to effectuate 

service. See Esquer Aff.; Wysong Aff. 

Case 5:07-cv-04853-HRL Document 17 Filed 03/10/08 Page 3 of 5
 3 

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 5:07-cv-04853-HRL 

#35960 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 

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: March 3, 2008 HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP 

By: _________/s/ Matthew Franklin Jaksa___

MATTHEW FRANKLIN JAKSA 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Case 5:07-cv-04853-HRL Document 17 Filed 03/10/08 Page 4 of 5
 1 

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 5:07-cv-04853-HRL 

#35960 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 

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 Defendant with process be extended to June 1, 2008. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case management conference currently set for April 

8, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. be continued to July 8, 2008. The parties shall file a Joint Case Management 

Statement by July 1, 2008. 

Dated: ___________________ By: _____________________________ 

 Honorable Howard R. Lloyd 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

May 5, 2008.

be continued to Jun. 10, 2008 at 1:30p.m.

June 3, 2008.

3/10/08

Case 5:07-cv-04853-HRL Document 17 Filed 03/10/08 Page 5 of 5