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.

Interscope Records v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


January 2, 2008

INTERSCOPE RECORDS, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP; UMG RECORDINGS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; SONY BMG MUSIC HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE ENTERTAINMENT, A DELAWARE GENERAL PARTNERSHIP; VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; AND BMG CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE MUSIC, A NEW YORK GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JOHN DOE, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Ex Parte Application to Continue CMC and [Proposed] Order Case No. 3:07-cv-04881-JSW currently set for January 4, 2008, at 1:30 p.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 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 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 9, 2007, this Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiffs' 45 subpoena on USF. conjunction with this case and other similar cases. However , USF did not provide Plaintiffs with 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.

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court continue the case management conference John Doe ("Defendant"). Service Provider -- here, University of San Francisco ("USF"). Accordingly, also on September 20, Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take Immediate Discovery authorizing Plaintiffs to serve a Rule 13 On November 30, 2007, USF responded to several subpoenas served by Plaintiffs in 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 1:30 p.m. to April 4, 2008.

Dated: December 21, 2007

ORDER

Good cause having been shown:

IT IS ORDERED that the case management conference currently set for January 4, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. be continued to April 4, 2008.

20080102

© 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.