Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01780/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01780-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Acella Pharmaceuticals LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV10-1780-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation filed a Second Motion for Leave to

Amend Complaint and Motion to Extend Discovery (Doc. 219) on June 20, 2011. Plaintiff’s

proposed amended complaint would specify that its claim for monetary damages under §284

includes a claim for enhanced damages because Defendant Acella Pharmaceuticals allegedly

willfully infringed Plaintiff’s patent. Plaintiff asks the Court to re-open discovery to allow

Plaintiff to depose Acella on the topics relating to willful infringement. 

The Court’s Rule 16 Scheduling Order set a deadline of December 3, 2010 for

amending the complaint. (Doc. 33.) Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Amend comes more than

six months after that deadline. Plaintiff therefore must show good cause to amend.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4)(“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the

judge’s consent.”). If Plaintiff meets the good cause standard, the Court then will evaluate

the Motion under Rule 15 standards regarding amendment of pleadings. See Coleman v.

Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000).

Case 2:10-cv-01780-JAT Document 229 Filed 07/29/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

The good cause standard for modifying a scheduling order focuses primarily on the

diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence

and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Id. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice

to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the

focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification . . . . If that

party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. 

Plaintiff argues that it has indicated all along that it seeks to prove that Defendant

willfully infringed. If that is true, why not include willfulness allegations in the original

complaint? Or, why not seek to amend the complaint before the Rule 16 Scheduling Order’s

deadline? Failing that, why not seek to add the allegations regarding willfulness when

Plaintiff first moved to amend the complaint after the deadline had passed? 

Plaintiff seeks to blame Defendant’s “reversal” in litigation strategy for Plaintiff’s

failure to seek an amendment earlier. But, as the Court previously has warned Plaintiff,

“Plaintiff cannot rely on Defendant’s litigation position to decide how Plaintiff should

plead.” (Doc. 170, p.2.) Plaintiff has not provided a credible reason for failing to seek to add

the willfulness allegations at least by the same time it sought leave to amend the complaint

to specify its claim for monetary damages. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff cannot

meet the diligence standard for granting a motion to modify the scheduling order.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Leave to Amend

Complaint and Motion to Extend Discovery for the Limited Purpose of Taking Depositions

Regarding Willfulness (Doc. 219). 

DATED this 29th day of July, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01780-JAT Document 229 Filed 07/29/11 Page 2 of 2