Doe 1 et al v. Ciolli et al

Filing 27

MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Complaint by Doe 1, Doe 2. (Mitra, Steven)

Doe 1 et al v. Ciolli et al

Doc. 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

DOE I and DOE II, Plaintiffs, v. Unknown Individuals, Defendants.

Case No. 3:07CV00909 (CFD)

MARCH 7, 2008

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE COMPLAINT Plaintiffs move the Court to allow them an additional 45 days to serve their First Amended Complaint which was filed with the Court on November 8, 2007. The basis of this motion is as follows: 1. As the Court is aware, this case involves claims by plaintiffs that the defendants

took advantage of the anonymity provided by an Internet website to publish vile, defamatory and otherwise tortious content regarding them. 2. Plaintiffs' ability to proceed in this case has been hampered by defendants'

anonymity. In order to uncover the identities of the defendants, propound discovery on them, and proceed with the action, plaintiffs sought the Court's permission to conduct limited, formal discovery in advance of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference on January 24, 2008. On January 29, 2008, this Court granted plaintiffs' motion. 3. Since the Court's Order, plaintiffs have been diligently propounding discovery to

various entities throughout the country for information relating to the identification of the defendants in this matter. This discovery effort has involved, inter alia, sending subpoenas to Internet service providers and conducting depositions where necessary. 5. While plaintiffs have uncovered identifying information that relates to some

412756.01

1
Dockets.Justia.com

defendants through their efforts, they need additional time to complete their investigation with regard to these defendants and to confirm their identities before naming them. Plaintiffs also need this additional time because certain third party entities with identifying information have yet to respond to plaintiffs' subpoenas. 6. Additionally, plaintiffs' discovery effort is being challenged by at least one

defendant. As the Court is aware, one of plaintiffs' subpoenas is the subject of a motion to quash before this Court brought by a defendant who calls himself "AK47." While plaintiffs believe that the motion should be denied, they are currently preparing a response. 7. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), plaintiffs are required to serve their

amended complaint within 120 days, i.e. by March 7, 2008. For the reasons stated in this motion, plaintiffs respectfully request an additional 45 days, i.e. until April 21, to serve their complaint on defendants identified by then.

Dated: March 7, 2008

PLAINTIFFS DOE I AND DOE II By: /s/_Steve Mitra__________ Mark Lemley (pro hac vice) Ashok Ramani (pro hac vice) Steve Mitra (pro hac vice) KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] David N. Rosen David Rosen & Associates PC 400 Orange Street New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail]

412756.01

2

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE The addresses of the defendants is unknown.

___________/s/_Steve Mitra______________ Steve Mitra

412756.01

3