Arista Records LLC et al v. Lime Wire LLC et al

Filing 481

ORDER: Accordingly, Defendants' application to extend the discovery deadlines for the purpose of conducting this deposition is denied. Plaintiffs have just informed the Court that they may need to conduct depositions of representatives of Tower and Lime Brokerage, following the production by these entities of the documents that the Court ordered them to produce. Yet Plaintiffs' prior application to the Court regarding the need for discovery from these non-parties did not even mention the potential need for depositions; rather, that application was devoted entirely to Plaintiffs' purported need for documents. At this stage, as discussed herein, depositions should have been completed. If depositions were needed, and could not have been completed within the discovery period, then it behooved the parties to raise the matter with the Court. Further, Plaintiffs have strenuously argued that Defendants should not be permitted to take depositions after the close of discovery, and offer no explanation as to why the same rules to which they would hold Defendants should not apply to them. Accordingly, any request by Plaintiffs to extend discovery so as to permit belated depositions is also denied. So Ordered (Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman on 2/16/11) (js)Copies By ECF