ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting in part plaintiff's 13 Motion for Extension of Time 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. C16-1882RSL
v.
DAVID LUPASTEAN, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME

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. # 13. 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 and serve the defendant. It can be done,

18

however, and the Court expects a good faith effort to comply with the service deadline.

19

Where the motion for leave to conduct expedited discovery is filed and granted in a

20

timely manner and the ISP responds promptly, plaintiff has some time – a few days or

21

weeks depending on the production date – in which to pursue an amicable resolution of

22

the case before utilizing the waiver of service procedure set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d).

23

If plaintiff opts to spend additional time negotiating with persons who have not yet been

24

brought into the suit, it would still have time to engage a process server and accomplish

25

service in a timely manner. In these scenarios, an extension of time should be necessary

26
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 1

1
2

only if a defendant failed to waive or was dodging service.
Here, plaintiff obtained the necessary contact information more than five weeks

3

before the March 8, 2017, service deadline. It opted to send two letters to the subscribers

4

and delayed mailing the waivers until it was too late to obtain responses within the

5

allotted time frame. It now seeks a sixty day extension of time so that it can receive

6

waivers and, if one or more defendants refuse to waive, can hire a process server.

7

Although good cause has not been shown and the Court expects plaintiff to further

8

modify its procedures as set forth above, plaintiff has at least attempted service prior to

9

the deadline and has timely moved for an extension. In these circumstances, the Court

10

finds that dismissal of this action would be unnecessarily punitive. Nevertheless, a

11

prophylactic sixty day extension of the service deadline – to deal with the possibilities

12

that one or more defendants may refuse to waive and/or that personal service may prove

13

difficult – is not warranted. Plaintiff shall have an additional month, until April 8, 2017,

14

to file proofs of waiver as to all defendants or a second motion for extension of time

15

detailing the efforts made toward effecting personal service.

16
17

Dated this 22nd day of February, 2017.

18

A

19

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 2