• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
C
OBLENT
P
ATCH
,D
UFFY
& B
ASS
,LP
   O  n  e   F  e  r  r  y   B  u  i  l  d  i  n  g ,   S  u  i  t  e  2  0  0
 ,  s  a  n   f  r  a  n  c  i  s  c  o ,  c  a
  9  4  1  1  1 -  4  2  1  3   (  4  1  5   )  3  9  1 -  4  8  0  0
 
       •
 
  f  a  x
   (  4  1  5   )  9  8  9 -  1  6  6  3
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
09204.004.0371.aCase No. C-04-1136 SCPLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
 AMICUS
BRIEF OF ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION ET AL., CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS’MISC. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO TAKE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7-10(B)
JEFFREY G. KNOWLES (State Bar # 129754)JULIA D. GREER (State Bar # 200479)ZUZANA J. SVIHRA (State Bar # 208671)COBLENTZ, PATCH, DUFFY & BASS, LLPOne Ferry Building, Suite 200San Francisco, California 94111-4213Telephone:(415) 391-4800Facsimile: (415) 989-1663Attorneys for PlaintiffsPRIORITY RECORDS LLC; FONOVISA, INC.;INTERSCOPE RECORDS; BMG MUSIC; VIRGINRECORDS AMERICA, INC.; MOTOWN RECORDCOMPANY, L.P.; SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENTINC.; ARISTA RECORDS, INC.; ATLANTICRECORDING CORP.; CAPITOL RECORDS, INC.;ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC.;WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC.; and UMGRECORDINGS, INC.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONPRIORITY RECORDS LLC, et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.DOES 1-8,Defendants.Case No. C-04-1136 SC
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
 AMICUS
BRIEF OF ELECTRONIC FRONTIERFOUNDATION ET AL., CONCERNINGPLAINTIFFS’ MISCELLANEOUSADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FORLEAVE TO TAKE IMMEDIATEDISCOVERY PURSUANT TO LOCALRULE 7-10(B)
 
C
OBLENT
P
ATCH
,D
UFFY
& B
ASS
,LP
   O  n  e   F  e  r  r  y   B  u  i  l  d  i  n  g ,   S  u  i  t  e  2  0  0
 ,  s  a  n   f  r  a  n  c  i  s  c  o ,  c  a
  9  4  1  1  1 -  4  2  1  3   (  4  1  5   )  3  9  1 -  4  8  0  0
 
       •
 
  f  a  x
   (  4  1  5   )  9  8  9 -  1  6  6  3
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
09204.004.0371.a
i
Case No. C-04-1136 SCPLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
 AMICUS
BRIEF OF ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION ET AL., CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS’MISC. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO TAKE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7-10(B)
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................1ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................................4I.PLAINTIFFS HAVE MET THE GOOD-CAUSE STANDARD FOREXPEDITED DISCOVERY...................................................................................4II.THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY
 AMICI 
ARE NOT RIPE FOR REVIEWAND, IN ANY CASE, ARE MERITLESS............................................................4A.First Amendment/Due Process....................................................................6B.Personal Jurisdiction.................................................................................11C.Joinder.......................................................................................................13III.GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION WILL ENSURE ANOPPORTUNITY FOR ALL PARTIES TO BE HEARD IN ANORDERLY FASHION..........................................................................................16CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................17
 
C
OBLENT
P
ATCH
,D
UFFY
& B
ASS
,LP
   O  n  e   F  e  r  r  y   B  u  i  l  d  i  n  g ,   S  u  i  t  e  2  0  0
 ,  s  a  n   f  r  a  n  c  i  s  c  o ,  c  a
  9  4  1  1  1 -  4  2  1  3   (  4  1  5   )  3  9  1 -  4  8  0  0
 
       •
 
  f  a  x
   (  4  1  5   )  9  8  9 -  1  6  6  3
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
09204.004.0371.a
ii
Case No. C-04-1136 SCPLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
 AMICUS
BRIEF OF ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION ET AL., CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS’MISC. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO TAKE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7-10(B)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage
C
ASES
 A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
,239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).............................................................................................2
 Alexander v. Fulton County
,207 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2000).........................................................................................15
 Arista Records, Inc. v. Sakfield Holding Co.
,314 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2004)....................................................................................12
 Autodesk, Inc. v. RK Mace Eng’g, Inc.
,No. C-03-5128 VRW, 2004 WL 603382 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2004)...............................12
 Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l Inc.
,228 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000)...........................................................................................12
 Bell v. Wolfish
,441 U.S. 520 (1979)............................................................................................................5
 Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found., Inc.
,525 U.S. 182 (1999)............................................................................................................8
Calder v. Jones
,465 U.S. 783 (1984)..........................................................................................................12
Carey v. Hume
,492 F.2d 631 (D.C. Cir. 1974)............................................................................................9
Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com
,185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1999)........................................................................................9
 DIRECTV, Inc. v. Adkins
,No. 1:03CV00064, 2003 WL 23096482 (W.D. Va. Dec. 29, 2003).................................16
 DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hosey
,289 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (D. Kan. 2003)...............................................................................16
 Eldred v. Ashcroft 
,537 U.S. 186 (2003)............................................................................................................9
 Equidyne Corp. v. Does
,279 F. Supp. 2d 481 (D. Del. 2003)....................................................................................4
Feist Publ’ns Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.
,499 U.S. 340 (1991)..........................................................................................................10
Gorman v. Ameritrade Holding Corp.
,293 F.3d 506 (D.C. Cir. 2002)..........................................................................................11
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...