Hunter Killer Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1
| Hunter Killer Productions, Inc. |
| Does 1-22 and Doe No. 1 |
| 1:2019cv04757 |
| July 16, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Edmond E Chang |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 29, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, and as previously ordered, should have served by now a subpoena on the ISP for identification purposes. The status hearing of 09/03/2019 is reset to 10/08/2019 at 9:30 a.m., with a concise status report due by 10/03/2019. The Clerks Office shall change the case short title defendant to Doe No. 1. Emailed notice (slb, ) |
| Filing 13 AMENDED complaint by Hunter Killer Productions, Inc. against Doe No. 1 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-B)(Hierl, Michael) |
| Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: This case was filed against 22 Doe Defendants, arising from the use of bitTorrent. But there is a question of improper joinder, when measured against the standard set by this Court's opinion in reFX Audio Software v. Does 1-85, 2014 WL 1293816, at *5-6 (N.D. Ill. March 24, 2014) (Case Nos. 13 C 01790, 13 C 01793, 13 C 03524, 13 C 07494). On review of Exhibit B to the Complaint, it does not appear that Plaintiff picked Defendants for joinder based on the standard articulated in that opinion. Plaintiff may argue against the prior opinion and move for a finding of proper joinder, but must do so by 08/13/2019 (if no new arguments have been fashioned since the last time this Plaintiff argued against the opinion, it is unlikely that the motion will be granted). Alternatively, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by 08/13/2019, to comply with the opinion. With regard to the motion #9 for early discovery, the motion #9 is provisionally granted, conditioned on Plaintiff filing an amended complaint narrowing down to one Doe Defendant; if Plaintiff does so, then Plaintiff may serve the ISP for information on that one Doe Defendant. The status hearing of 09/03/2019 remains in place for now. Emailed notice (slb, ) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Motion by Michael A. Hierl for presentment of motion for discovery #9 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 8/7/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hierl, Michael) |
| Filing 10 MEMORANDUM by Hunter Killer Productions, Inc. in support of motion for discovery #9 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-C)(Hierl, Michael) |
| Filing 9 MOTION by Plaintiff Hunter Killer Productions, Inc. for discovery Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference (Hierl, Michael) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiff has filed a complaint against Doe Defendants. If early discovery is required to identify the Doe Defendants, then Plaintiff shall file a motion seeking that relief no later than 08/05/2019. An Initial status hearing is set for 09/03/2019 at 9 a.m. The parties must file a joint initial status report with the content described in the attached status report requirements at least 3 business days before the initial status hearing. Plaintiff must still file the report even if not all Defendants have been served or have responded to requests to craft a joint report. read them anew even if counsel has appeared before Judge Chang in other cases. Because the Procedures are occasionally revised, counsel must read them anew even if counsel has appeared before Judge Chang in other cases.Emailed notice (Attachments: #1 Status Report Requirements) (slb, ) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 6 MAILED Copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 5 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Hunter Killer Productions, Inc. Plaintiff's Corporate Disclosure Statement Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.7.1 and Local Rule 3.2 (Hierl, Michael) |
| Filing 4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hunter Killer Productions, Inc. by William Benjamin Kalbac (Kalbac, William) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hunter Killer Productions, Inc. by Michael A. Hierl (Hierl, Michael) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Hierl, Michael) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Hunter Killer Productions, Inc.; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-16034028. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-B)(Hierl, Michael) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Susan E. Cox. Case assignment: Random assignment. (yt) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
