Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02537/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02537-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Copyright Infringement

---

EX PARTE APPLICATION 

Case No. 2:06-CV-02537-LKK-EFB 

#28311 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

Thomas M. Kerr (CA State Bar No. 241530) 

HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP

560 Mission Street, 25th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2994 

Telephone: (415) 268-2000 

Facsimile: (415) 268-1999 

Email: tom.kerr@hro.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 

ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION; 

WARNER BROS. RECORDS, INC.; PRIORITY 

RECORDS LLC; VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, 

INC.; MOTOWN RECORD COMPANY, L.P.; UMG 

RECORDINGS, INC.; SONY BMG MUSIC 

ENTERTAINMENT; and BMG MUSIC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, a 

Delaware corporation; WARNER BROS. 

RECORDS, INC., a Delaware corporation; 

PRIORITY RECORDS LLC, a California 

limited liability company; VIRGIN RECORDS 

AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; 

MOTOWN RECORD COMPANY, L.P., a 

California limited partnership; UMG 

RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; 

SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, a 

Delaware general partnership; and BMG 

MUSIC, a New York general partnership, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CYNTHIA EDLUND, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 2:06-CV-02537-LKK-EFB 

Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton 

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE 

INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

AND ORDER 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-02537-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 3
1 

EX PARTE APPLICATION 

Case No. 2:06-CV-02537-LKK-EFB 

#28311 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 hereby request that the Court continue the initial scheduling conference currently 

set for February 26, 2007, at 10:30 a.m. to May 21, 2007. The complaint in this matter was filed on 

November 14, 2006. Defendant was served with the summons and complaint on January 17, 2007. 

Plaintiffs, through their counsel, and Defendant, stipulated to extend the time for Defendant to 

answer the complaint until April 13, 2007. Defendant has not yet answered or otherwise responded 

to the complaint. Therefore, an initial scheduling conference is not necessary at this time. Plaintiffs 

therefore respectfully request that the Court continue the initial scheduling conference currently set 

for February 26, 2007, at 10:30 a.m. to May 21, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. 

DATED: February 22, 2007 THOMAS M. KERR 

HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP 

By: /s/ Thomas M. Kerr 

THOMAS M. KERR 

HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP 

ORDER

Good cause having been shown: 

IT IS ORDERED that the initial scheduling conference currently set for February 26, 2007, 

at 10:30 a.m. is hereby continued to May 21, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. 

DATED: February 22, 2007 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-02537-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 02/23/07 Page 2 of 3
2 

EX PARTE APPLICATION 

Case No. 2:06-CV-02537-LKK-EFB 

#28311 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

PROOF OF SERVICE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

I am employed in the office of Holme Roberts & Owen in San Francisco, California. I am 

over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 560 

Mission Street, 25th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105. 

On February 22, 2007, I served the foregoing document described as: 

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

on the interested party in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 

envelope addressed as follows: 

Nathan S. Miller 

Nutting & Jorgensen 

5703 N. West Ave., Ste. 103 

Fresno, CA 93711 

XX BY MAIL: I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and 

processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal 

service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Francisco, California in the 

ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed 

invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for 

mailing in affidavit. 

XX (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this 

court at whose direction the service was made. 

Executed on February 22, 2007 at San Francisco, California. 

________________________

Molly Morris 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-02537-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 02/23/07 Page 3 of 3