Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LLC v. Doe

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 4, 2019

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 68.224.153.164, Defendant. Date Filed # Docket Text

          CLARK 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

         Pursuant 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 states:

         1. This 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 (“ISP”).

         2. On 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.

         3. 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.

         5. Upon 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.

         6. 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.

         7. In 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.

         8. 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.

         9. 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.

         10. This application is made in good faith and not for the purpose of undue delay.

         11. 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.