UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
December 28, 2007
SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, A DELAWARE GENERAL PARTNERSHIP; LONDON-SIRE RECORDS INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; INTERSCOPE RECORDS, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP; UMG RECORDINGS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; BMG MUSIC, A NEW YORK GENERAL PARTNERSHIP; AND CAPITOL RECORDS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS,
JOHN DOE, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Maxine M. Chesney
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court continue the case management conference currently set for January 4, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. to April 4, 2008. As further explained below, there is 3 not yet a named defendant in this case, and Plaintiffs do not yet know the true identity of Defendant John Doe ("Defendant").
Plaintiffs filed the Complaint against 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 -- here, University of San Francisco ("USF"). Accordingly, also on September 20, 2007, Plaintiffs filed their Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take Immediate Discovery, seeking the Court's permission to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on USF so that Plaintiffs could discover information sufficient to identify Defendant. On October 1, 2007, this Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take Immediate Discovery authorizing Plaintiffs to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on USF.
On November 30, 2007, USF responded to several subpoenas served by Plaintiffs' in conjunction with this case and other similar cases. However , USF did not provide Plaintiffs with 16 information permitting Plaintiffs to identify Defendant in this particular case. Since that time Plaintiffs, have been in communication with USF and are attempting to determine whether USF possesses further information that would allow Plaintiffs to identify Defendant. If Plaintiffs determine that USF does not have such information, Plaintiffs will promptly file a notice of dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. If Plaintiffs are able to identify Defendant, Plaintiffs will attempt to contact Defendant and attempt to resolve this dispute.
However, because there is not yet a named defendant in this case and Plaintiffs do not yet know Defendant's true identity, a case management conference is unnecessary at this time.
Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that the Court continue the case management conference currently set for January 4, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. to April 4, 2008.
Dated: December 21, 2007
Good cause having been shown:
IT IS ORDERED that the case management conference currently set for January 4, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. be continued to April 4, 2008.
Honorable Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.