ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying plaintiff's 18 Motion for Extension of Time and Dismissing Case by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
Case No. C16-1778RSL
v.
JESSICA ROBERTS, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME AND
DISMISSING CASE

Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time

14

in which to serve the complaint. Dkt. # 18. A party generally has 90 days after a

15

complaint is filed in which to serve the defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). It can be

16

challenging to meet this deadline in BitTorrent cases where plaintiff must first conduct

17

discovery from the ISP before it can identify, name, and serve the defendant. It can be

18

done, however, and the Court has repeatedly indicated that it expects at least a good faith

19

effort to comply with the service deadline. Where the motion for leave to conduct

20

expedited discovery is filed and granted in a timely manner and the ISP responds

21

promptly, plaintiff has some time – a few days or weeks depending on the production date

22

– in which to pursue an amicable resolution of the case before utilizing the waiver of

23

service procedure set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). If plaintiff opts to spend additional

24

time negotiating with persons who have not yet been named as defendants, it would still

25

have time to engage a process server and accomplish service in a timely manner. In these

26
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME AND DISMISSING CASE - 1

1

scenarios, an extension of time should be necessary only if a defendant failed to waive or

2

was dodging service.

3

Here, plaintiff is not seeking an extension of time because the Court delayed in

4

granting the discovery request, because the ISP delayed in producing the necessary

5

information, or because defendants impeded timely service. Despite obtaining the

6

necessary contact information more than a month before the February 14, 2017, service

7

deadline, there is no evidence that plaintiff made any attempt to timely serve.1 Rather,

8

plaintiff opted to spend almost six weeks informally communicating with the subscribers

9

before filing an amended complaint and seeking an extension of the service deadline.

10

Good cause has not been shown. Despite prior warnings (see CELL Film

11

Holdings, LLC v. Rogers, C16-1180RSL, Dkt. # 13 at 2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2016)),

12

plaintiff has not adjusted its procedures sufficiently to account for the known and

13

expected delays in accomplishing service in these cases. Nor has it made any effort to

14

accomplish service prior to the expiration of the service deadline. Plaintiff’s apparent

15

preference for weeks of informal discussions does not excuse its failure to comply with

16

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court finds that an extension of the service

17

deadline is not warranted. This action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure

18

to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

19
20

Dated this 16th day of February, 2017.

21

A

22

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26

1

Plaintiff’s motion states that it “is promptly mailing out waivers of service.” Dkt. # 18
at 3. There is no explanation for why this step was not taken in a timely manner, nor is there any
evidence to support the bald assertion of intended action. Dkt. # 19.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME AND DISMISSING CASE - 2