Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sony Bmg Music Entertainment v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


December 28, 2007

SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, A DELAWARE GENERAL PARTNERSHIP; LAFACE RECORDS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY COMPANY; WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; ARISTA RECORDS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND MOTOWN RECORD COMPANY, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JOHN DOE, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

currently set for January 4, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. to April 4, 2008.

Immediate Discovery seeking the Court's permission to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on University of September 28, 2007, this Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Leave 8 to Take Immediate Discovery authorizing Plaintiffs to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on University of Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court continue the case management conference Plaintiffs filed the Complaint against Defendant John Doe ("Defendant") on September 20, 2007. Also on September 20, 2007, Plaintiffs filed their Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take 5 San Francisco, so that Plaintiffs could obtain information sufficient to identify Defendant. On 7 San Francisco. On November 30, 2007, University of San Francisco responded to Plaintiffs' subpoena, providing Plaintiffs with identifying information including Defendant's name, address, and telephone number.

Now that Plaintiffs know Defendant's identity, and in hopes of avoiding further litigation, Plaintiffs have sent a letter to Defendant on December 18, 2007 asking her to contact Plaintiffs regarding possible settlement of this matter. If the parties do not resolve this dispute, Plaintiffs plan to file an amended complaint naming Defendant personally.

Given the foregoing circumstances, and because there is not yet a named defendant in this case, a case management conference is unnecessary at this time. Plaintiffs therefore request that the April 4, 2008.

Dated: December 20, 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.

20071228

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.