Doe 1 et al v. Ciolli et al

Filing 49

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)

Download PDF
Doe 1 et al v. Ciolli et al Doc. 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DOE I and DOE II, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 3:07CV00909 (CFD) June 19,2008 EMERGENCY RELIEF REQUESTED Unkown Individuals, Defendants. 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 419760.01 1 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 DOE II 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: David N. Rosen David Rosen & Associates PC 400 Orange Street New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 787-3513 Facsimile: (203) 789-1605 Email: 419760.01 2

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?