Doe 1 et al v. Ciolli et al
MOTION for Extension of Time until 08/07/2008 To File and Serve Second Amended Complaint by Doe 1, Doe 2. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Darling, Rose)
Doe 1 et al v. Ciolli et al
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
DOE I and DOE II,
Case No. 3:07CV00909 (CFD)
EMERGENCY RELIEF REQUESTED
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs DOE I and DOE II move the Court to allow them an additional 45 days to file
and serve their Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The current due date is June 23, 2008 (the
Cour granted Plaintiffs until June 21, 2008, which is a Satuday, to file and serve the SAC;
Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 6 extends that due date to June 23). This Cour previously
granted Plaintiffs two extensions of time to serve the First Amended Complaint, one until April
21,2008 and another until June 21, 2008. The basis ofthis motion is as follows:
1. Last Friday, this Cour issued an order denying John Doe 21 ' s Motion to Quash
Plaintiffs' Subpoena and John Doe 21's Motion to Proceed Anonymously (doc. # 48). Plaintiffs
are now able to use the information disclosed by AT&T, the entity that Plaintiffs subpoenaed.
Plaintiffs recently learned that the subscriber disclosed by AT&T is not John Doe 21 ("AK47"),
but likely knows his identity. Plaintiffs plan to serve the AT&T subscriber with a subpoena for
documents and deposition testimony, and then serve similar discovery on AK47. Plaintiffs
canot complete this discovery
before June 21,2008.
2. In addition, Plaintiffs are close to identifyng five additional pseudonymous
defendants in this case. Specifically, Plaintiffs are in the process of scheduling a deposition with
one pseudonymous defendant, who initially agreed to sit for deposition this week but just a few
days ago demurred. Plaintiffs have also been making diligent efforts to serve another
pseudonymous defendant, who appears to be dodging service. Plaintiffs have discovered the
identities of three additional pseudonymous defendants, and are very close to deciding whether
to name these individuals as defendants.
3. In the interest of
judicial economy, Plaintiffs request additional time to complete
their investigation regarding these six defendants, before moving to amend. It would be more
efficient to name all the defendants at once, proceed with the Rule 26(f) conference, and then
paricipate in a single joint Case Management Conference, rather than name certain defendants
now and then have to seek the Cour's leave to amend to name other defendants six weeks later.
4. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs respectfully request an additional 45 days,
or until August 7, 2008, to file and serve their complaint on the defendants then identified.
5. Because the deadline for fiing and serving the SAC is June 23, 2008, Plaintiffs
request that the Cour consider the merits ofthis motion on an expedited basis.
Dated: June 19,2008 PLAITIFFS DOE I AN
By: /s/ Ashok Ramani
Mark Lemley (pro hac vice)
Ashok Ramani (pro hac vice)
KEKER & Y AN NEST, LLP 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 Email: MLemley~kv.com
David N. Rosen David Rosen & Associates PC 400 Orange Street New Haven, CT 06511
Telephone: (203) 787-3513
Facsimile: (203) 789-1605 Email: drosen~davidrosenlaw.com
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?