You're viewing Docket Item 22 from the case MILLENNIUM TGA, INC. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LLC. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:12-mc-00150-RLW-AK Document 22 Filed 06/07/12 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MILLENNIUM TGA, INC.,





Plaintiff,



v.


JOHN DOE,


_______________________________________)


Defendant.









) No. 4:11-cv-4501]


)
) Case No.: 1:12-mc-00150-ESH-AK


)





) Judge : Hon. Ellen S. Huvelle
)
) Magistrate Judge: Hon. Alan Kay
)
)
)

[Case pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas,

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

APRIL 18, 2012 ORDER





Non-Party Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) seeks to further delay its

compliance with Plaintiff’s validly issued subpoena by filing a motion for extension of time to

comply with Magistrate Judge’s April 18, 2012 order. (ECF No. 19.) Comcast requests “that the

date for any disclosure of information required by the April 18 Order be extended until seven (7)

days after the Court has resolved Comcast’s Objections, if that date is later than June 10, 2012.”

(Id. ¶ 3.) To be granted this relief Comcast must establish that it has good cause to modify the

date set by the Court. Dada v. Children’s Nat. Medical Center, 715. A.2d 904 (D.C. 1998)

(explaining that the moving party must establish good cause to modify a court’s scheduling

order). Comcast’s only claim in support of its motion is that it makes it “out of an abundance of

caution.” (ECF No. 19 ¶ 3.) Further, Comcast cited no authority in support of the relief it seeks.

(See generally ECF No. 19.) This is not the necessary showing of good cause required to disobey

the Court’s schedule. Further, the relief sought by Comcast would cause Plaintiff great prejudice,

while complying with the subpoena would not prejudice Comcast. Comcast’s motion should,

therefore, be denied.

Case 1:12-mc-00150-RLW-AK Document 22 Filed 06/07/12 Page 2 of 4

Comcast’s continual delays cause Plaintiff great prejudice. Plaintiff originally issued its

court-authorized subpoena to Comcast on February 15, 2012. (ECF No. 1 at 21.) Instead of

simply complying with Plaintiff’s valid subpoena, Comcast has challenged it every step of the

way, and now seeks to delay compliance with it over four months after it was issued. Meanwhile

the infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted work is continuous and ongoing. Every day Comcast

delays in providing Plaintiff with the information it seeks in its subpoena is another day Plaintiff

is harmed by the infringement.

Comcast, on the other hand, suffers no prejudice in providing Plaintiff with the

information it seeks. Comcast has already admitted to retrieving the information sought in

Plaintiff’s subpoena. (ECF No. 7 at 6) (explaining that Comcast already looked up the

information for the subscribers Plaintiff seeks to identify). Comcast simply needs to provide

Plaintiff with that information in a timely fashion in accordance with the Court’s April 18, 2012

order. If the Court later overturns the April 18, 2012 order, it can always issue a protective order

preventing Plaintiff from using or disclosing the information it obtained in it subpoenas. Until

that time, however, Comcast has no reason to disobey the standing Court order.

The Court should deny Comcast’s motion for extension of time to comply and require

Comcast to comply with the April 18, 2012 order within the generous time already provided by

the Court.









[intentionally left blank]



2

Case 1:12-mc-00150-RLW-AK Document 22 Filed 06/07/12 Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted,

MILLENNIUM TGA, INC.

DATED: June 7, 2012








By: /s/ Paul A. Duffy
Paul A. Duffy, Esq. (D.C. Bar Number: IL0014)
Prenda Law Inc.
161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 880-9160
Facsimile: (312) 893-5677
E-mail: [email protected]
Counsel for the Plaintiff











3

Case 1:12-mc-00150-RLW-AK Document 22 Filed 06/07/12 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 7, 2012, all counsel of record who are
deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document using the Court’s CM/ECF system.



















/s/ Paul A. Duffy
PAUL A. DUFFY





4