Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04875/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04875-0/pdf.json

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

---

Ex Parte Application to Continue CMC and Extend Time to Serve Defendant and [Proposed] Order 

Case No. 5:07-cv-04875-JF 

#34949 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, 

LAFACE RECORDS LLC; CAPITOL 

RECORDS, INC.; WARNER BROS. 

RECORDS INC.; UMG RECORDINGS, 

INC.; BMG MUSIC; and ARISTA 

RECORDS LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

LAFACE RECORDS LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company; CAPITOL RECORDS, INC., 

a Delaware corporation; WARNER BROS. 

RECORDS INC., a Delaware corporation; UMG 

RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; 

BMG MUSIC, a New York general partnership; 

and ARISTA RECORDS LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JOHN DOE, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 5:07-CV-04875-JF 

Honorable Jeremy Fogel 

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

AND EXTEND TIME TO SERVE 

DEFENDANT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

**E-filed 1/23/08** ----------------

Case 5:07-cv-04875-JF Document 10 Filed 01/23/08 Page 1 of 4
 1 

Ex Parte Application to Continue CMC and Extend Time to Serve Defendant and [Proposed] Order 

Case No. 5:07-cv-04875-JF 

#34949 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 February 15, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. to May 16, 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 90 days to serve Defendant with the Summons and Complaint. As further explained 

below, Plaintiffs have discovered the identity of the Doe defendant in this case and the parties have 

reached a provisional settlement; Plaintiffs thus seek additional time to amend the complaint and 

effectuate service in the event the settlement fails. In support of their request, Plaintiffs state as 

follows: 

1. The initial case management conference is set for February 15, 2008, at 10:30 a.m., as 

previously continued by the Court pursuant to the Clerk’s Notice filed on December 19, 2007. The 

current deadline for service of process is January 18, 2008. 

2. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Copyright Infringement against Defendant John 

Doe (“Defendant”) on September 20, 2007. 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”) – here, California 

State University, Monterey Bay. 

3. In order to determine 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 the ISP. 

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

2007, which was promptly served upon the ISP along with a Rule 45 subpoena. On November 30, 

2007, 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 

December 18, 2007 notifying her of their claims for copyright infringement and encouraging her to 

Case 5:07-cv-04875-JF Document 10 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 4
 2 

Ex Parte Application to Continue CMC and Extend Time to Serve Defendant and [Proposed] Order 

Case No. 5:07-cv-04875-JF 

#34949 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 

make contact to attempt to amicably resolve this matter. In response to that notification, settlement 

discussions took place and Plaintiffs believe that a settlement has been reached. Settlement 

documents were sent to Defendant on December 31, 2007, which have not yet been returned signed 

by Defendant. 

6. If Defendant returns the signed settlement documents by February 15, 2008 or shortly 

thereafter, Plaintiffs will file appropriate dispositional documents with the Court. If she does not, 

Plaintiffs plan to file a First Amended Complaint naming her individually as the defendant in this 

case, and then proceed to serve process upon her. 

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

management conference be continued to May 16, 2008, or such other date as conveniences the 

Court. Plaintiffs also request an additional 90 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 her 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. 

Case 5:07-cv-04875-JF Document 10 Filed 01/23/08 Page 3 of 4
 3 

Ex Parte Application to Continue CMC and Extend Time to Serve Defendant and [Proposed] Order 

Case No. 5:07-cv-04875-JF 

#34949 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 

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

concerning this request when service of process occurs. 

Dated: January 17, 2008 HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP 

By: __________/s/ Matthew Franklin Jaksa___

MATTHEW FRANKLIN JAKSA 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 Good cause having been shown: 

IT IS ORDERED that the case management conference currently set for February 15, 2008, 

at 10:30 a.m. be continued to May 16, 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 

April 17, 2008. 

Dated: ___________________ By: _____________________________ 

Honorable Jeremy Fogel 

United States District Judge 

---------------- 1/23/08

Case 5:07-cv-04875-JF Document 10 Filed 01/23/08 Page 4 of 4