United States District Court, D. Nevada
HILL PLC Jeremy J. Thompson, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC'S AMENDED EX-PARTE
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO EFFECTUATE
SERVICE ON JOHN DOE DEFENDANT
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), Plaintiff, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC
(“Plaintiff”), makes this amended ex-parte
application for entry of an order extending the time within
which to effectuate service on John Doe Defendant, and
is a copyright infringement case against a John Doe Defendant
known to Plaintiff only by an IP address. Defendant's
true identity is known by their Internet service provider
July 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed its Ex-Parte Motion for Leave
to Serve Subpoena (“Motion”), which would allow
it to identify Defendant. ECF 4. Without the Internet Service
Provider's (“ISP”) response to this subpoena,
Plaintiff cannot identify and serve Defendant.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 4(m), Plaintiff is required to
effectuate service on the Defendant no later than September
22, 2019. After a review of this case in PACER and not seeing
a docket entry subsequent to its Motion, Plaintiff believed
that the Court had yet to rule on its Motion. As a result, it
filed its original Ex-Parte Application for Extension of Time
within Which to Effectuate Service on John Doe Defendant on
September 18, which noted that it had not yet received a
Court order granting its Motion, and thus had not issued a
subpoena seeking the Defendant's identity.
4. In a
separate matter where Plaintiff had made a similar request
for extension of time, the Court pointed out that it had
issued an order in that case. See No. CV 19 -01071-JCM-NJK,
ECF No. 7.
receiving the ECF No. 7 email notification related to that
separate matter, Plaintiff's counsel reviewed PACER in
this case and noticed that its application for an extension
of time was identified as ECF No. 6, but that there was no
docket entry or information for ECF No. 5. See Exhibit 1.
Thus, it recently came to Plaintiff's attention that the
Court had already entered an order granting Plaintiff's
Motion in this case, but that such order has not posted on
PACER. After careful review of undersigned's email,
however, undersigned found the CM/ECF email notification
indicating that the Court had entered an Order granting the
Motion at Docket Entry 5 (“Order”). Plaintiff is
filing the instant amended motion to correct its previous
statement that its Motion had not been granted.
learning of this discrepancy, Plaintiff also discovered that
the CM/ECF notification email did not provide Plaintiff with
access to the Order. That is, Plaintiff is unable to review
and download the Order to attach to its subpoena to the ISP.
Plaintiff apologizes to this Court for this confusion and
oversight and will ensure that it notifies the clerk as soon
as possible of any future CM/ECF notification emails which do
not provide access to a filed document.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the time within which it
has to effect service of the summons and Complaint on
Defendant be extended until forty-five (45) days after it
expects to learn the Defendant's identity, or November
15, 2019. This extension should allow Plaintiff sufficient
time to request that the clerk make the Order publicly
available on the docket, serve the subpoena, receive the
ISP's response, conduct a further investigation to assist
in determining whether the individual identified by the ISP
is the appropriate defendant for this action, amend the
complaint and serve the appropriate defendant.
This application is made in good faith and not for the
purpose of undue delay.
None of the parties will be prejudiced by the granting of
this extension. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests
that the time within which it has to effectuate service of
the summons and Complaint on Defendant be extended until