Virgin Records America, Inc v. Thomas

Filing 15

Virgin Records America, Inc v. Thomas

Doc. 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; CAPITOL RECORDS, INC., a Delaware corporation; SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, a Delaware general partnership; ARISTA RECORDS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; INTERSCOPE RECORDS, a California general partnership; WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., a Delaware corporation; and UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. JAMMIE THOMAS, Defendant. Plaintiffs Virgin Records America, Inc., et al (collectively, " laintiffs" and P ) Defendant Jammie Thomas (" efendant", jointly submit this memorandum seeking to D ) amend the Pretrial Schedule entered on July 26, 2006. The parties respectfully request that the Court extend the pretrial schedule as indicated below. Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 16.3, there is good cause for this motion, and a statement pursuant to Local Rule 16.3(b)(1)-(4) is made as follows: 1. Responding to Local Rule 16.3(b)(1), Defendant is still preparing her Civ. No.: 06-cv-1497 MJD/RLE

STIPULATED MOTION TO AMEND PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A RULE 16 CONFERENCE

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

expert report, and both parties expect to notice depositions of the Defendant and the expert. 2. Responding to Local Rule 16.3(b)(2), the parties have been diligently

pursuing discovery in this action. The parties have completed all written discovery. The

Dockets.Justia.com

discovery outstanding is limited: Plaintiffs have issued a document subpoena to the internet service provider and is awaiting production of the requested documents. 3. Responding to Local Rule 16.3(b)(3), it will be difficult to complete

discovery prior to the March 1, 2007 discovery deadline. The schedules of the parties have presented various conflicts that have not permitted the parties to conduct the necessary depositions and gather the corresponding documents despite their mutual best efforts. 4. Responding to Local Rule 16.3(b)(4), the parties' proposed amended

schedule provides for an additional two months to permit the parties to complete depositions and discovery related thereto. The parties seek a corresponding extension of time for filing the non-dispositive and dispositive motions to accommodate the requested extension on the close of the discovery period. Therefore, the parties respectfully request that the dates in the Pretrial Scheduling Order be amended as follows: Current deadline Close of Discovery Period Non-dispositive motions Dispositive motions Trial ready March 1, 2007 April 1, 2007 May 1, 2007 July 1, 2007 Amended deadline May 1, 2007 June 1, 2007 July 1, 2007 August 1, 2007

A proposed order reflecting the foregoing changes is attached. For all the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that the Court amend the Pretrial Schedule as proposed above and in the accompanying proposed Order.

In the alternative, the parties request a conference with the court to determine the most appropriate method of resolving the parties'discovery concerns pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. The parties are prepared to discuss such matters at the Court' convenience. s Date: February 28, 2007 Respectfully submitted, /s Laura G. Coates Felicia J. Boyd (No. 186168) Laura G. Coates (No. 350175) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-3901 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] OF COUNSEL David A. Tonini (pro hac vice) HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP 1700 Lincoln, Suite 4100 Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS /s Brian Toder Brian Toder CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE, P.A. 3700 Campbell Mithun Tower 222 South 9th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
fb.us.1834708.01