Case 1:16-cv-02580-WYD-MEH Document 31 Filed 02/14/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-02580-WYD-MEH
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
a Nevada Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOES 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-20,
Defendants.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS
(AUTHORITY INCORPORATED)
Pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1, and law, the
Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension of time of thirty (30) days, from February 14, 2017,
the date set by the Court in its January 9, 2017 Minute Order [ECF No. 24], up to and including
March 16, 2017, to serve the remaining Defendants in the above-captioned action. Pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(b), the Plaintiff states that this is the second request for an extension of
time in this action.
AS GROUNDS THEREFOR, the Plaintiff shows:
1. All citations to legal authority, all references to the record in this case, all exhibits,
and all arguments in the first motion for extension of time [filed January 6, 2016; ECF No. 22]
are incorporated herein.
Case 1:16-cv-02580-WYD-MEH Document 31 Filed 02/14/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
2. The record in this case shows that despite the Plaintiff’s effort to expedite the
production by the relevant Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) of identifying information regarding
the Defendants, the Plaintiff has not known the identity any of the remaining Defendants for
more than the 90 days allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) to effect service [see ECF No. 22, ¶s 5 &
6 and Ex. 1 attached hereto (redacted response to subpoena from ISP Comcast)]. Therefore,
there is good cause for granting this requested extension of time. See Espinoza v. United States,
52 F.3d 838, 841 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. den.
3. Although the Plaintiff contends that it has good cause for not having the Complaint in
this case served on the remaining Defendants within 90 days after it was filed, even in the
absence of good cause, this Court still has the discretion to direct that service be made within a
specified time beyond 90 days from the filing date. Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654,
662, 116 S. Ct. 1638, 1643, 134 L. Ed. 2d 880, 889 (1996); see also Espinoza v. United States,
52 F.3d at 842 (“‘[W]e believe that this amendment clearly evinces a solicitous attitude toward
plaintiffs facing ‘the complex requirements of multiple service. . .’” construing Rule 4 (i) in the
context of Rule 4 (m)).
4. The Plaintiff will not have known the identity of any of the remaining Defendants for
ninety (90) days until April 14, 2017 [see ECF No. 22, ¶s 5 & 6 and Ex. 1 attached hereto].
5. Accordingly, for these reasons, and because there is a showing of good cause, the
Plaintiff requests an extension of time up to and including March 16, 2017, to have the remaining
Defendants served. Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838, 841-42 (10th Cir. 1995),
2
Case 1:16-cv-02580-WYD-MEH Document 31 Filed 02/14/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
cert. den.
DATED this 14th day of February, 2017.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David J. Stephenson, Jr.
David J. Stephenson, Jr.
5310 Ward Rd., Suite G-07
Arvada, CO 80002
Telephone: (303) 726-2259
Facsimile: (303) 362-5679
[email protected]
Attorney for the Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 14, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF and that service was perfected through this system on
all counsel of record and interested parties who have entered their appearance in this action and by
e-mail to the movant.
By: /s/ David J. Stephenson, Jr.
3