subpoenas issued to ISPs for thirty days from the date of service. Order Granting the Plaintiff’sMotion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference, Apr. 15, 2010, ECF No. 4(Urbina, J.) (“April 15, 2010 Expedited Discovery Order”). Since issuance of the April 15, 2010Expedited Discovery Order, the plaintiff has received identifying information about some but notall of the putative defendants. Pl.’s Mot. for an Extension of Time to Name and Serve, July 20,2010, ECF No. 13, at 4.Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the plaintiff was required to serve defendantsby July 17, 2010, which is the date within 120 days of filing its original Complaint. On July 20,2010, plaintiff requested an additional 120 days, until November 17, 2010, to name and serve thedefendants because the plaintiff had yet to receive identifying information for all defendants listedin the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
On January 3, 2011, the Court granted this motion
nunc pro tunc
by Minute Order. Minute Order, Jan. 3, 2011 (Urbina, J.).In the January 3, 2011 Minute Order, the Court further observed that “[b]ecause the 120day period has now passed, however, the court orders that the plaintiff file a status report byJanuary 17, 2010 advising the court of its current posture regarding its identification and serviceof the Doe defendants in this case.”
. Pursuant to this Minute Order, the plaintiff filed a statusreport on January 13, 2011 informing the Court that the plaintiff had “received information fromsome of the ISPs but not all of them” and “request[ed] that the Court extend the time by whichPlaintiff must name and serve the Defendants in this case to a reasonable time after Plaintiff hasreceived the identifying information for all of the Defendants.” Pl.’s Status Report Pursuant toCourt’s Minute Order of 01/03/11, Jan. 13, 2011, ECF No. 20, at 2-3. Although plaintiff indicated informally that it would like an extension of time to name and serve the putative
Case 1:10-cv-00455-BAH Document 46 Filed 04/04/11 Page 2 of 5