Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08030/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08030-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright 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

Tom Bean, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

Pearson Education, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-8030-PCT-PGR

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents Requested

in First and Third Sets of Document Expenses and for Award of Expenses. (Doc. 69.)

Defendant filed a response opposing the motion and Plaintiffs filed a reply. (Docs. 83, 88.)

For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed a complaint on February 25, 2011, alleging copyright infringement and

fraud. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on June 14, 2011, and

Defendant filed an answer on July 1. (Docs. 56, 66.) 

The First Amended Complaint omitted an allegation contained in the original

complaint. Citing the omitted language, Defendant contended that the First Amended

Complaint dramatically reduced the number of Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims,

from 834 to six (relating to five of 178 publications). (See Doc. 67 at 4; Doc. 80 at 12; Doc.

81 at 3.) In the parties’ Joint Case Management Report, Defendant based its proposed

discovery deadlines on the limited number of claims included in the First Amended

Case 3:11-cv-08030-PGR Document 91 Filed 09/13/11 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Complaint. (Doc. 67 at 12.) On August 16, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to file

a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 77.)

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B)(iv) provides that a party may file a

motion to compel if “a party fails to respond that inspection will be permitted—or fails to

permit inspection—as requested under Rule 34.”

Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant to produce documents responsive to their first

and third sets of document requests, dated March 17 and May 6, 2011, which propound a

total of 14 document requests. (Doc. 69, Att. 2 at 2, 24.) These requests seek discovery

relating to the use of the photographs Plaintiffs licensed to Defendant for inclusion in

educational publications from 1986 to 2010. (See Doc. 88 at 10.)

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has failed to produce the books in which Plaintiffs’

photographs were used; the licensing files for Plaintiffs’ photographs; the date and quantity

printed for each individual printing session of the books in question; and Defendant’s display

of Plaintiffs’ photographs on any internet website. (Doc. 69 at 5.)

Defendant responds that it already has produced, or will produce in several weeks or

months, the documents relevant to the claims in the First Amended Complaint. (See, e.g.,

Doc. 83 at 3.) Defendant also states that it will produce additional materials relevant to the

allegations in the Second Amended Complaint. (Id.) Plaintiffs reply that this “mere statement

of intention to produce documents without actual production, several months after the

requests were propounded, is an insufficient response under Rule 34.” (Doc. 88 at 9.) 

While sharing Plaintiffs’ concern with the pace of disclosure, the Court will deny the

motion to compel. As set forth in the Court’s scheduling order, discovery is to be completed

by January 6, 2012. (Doc. 78.) The Second Amended Complaint was filed August 16, 2011.

(Doc. 85.) Defendant has indicated that it is in the process of providing the disclosure sought

by Plaintiffs. Under these circumstances the Court concludes that a motion to compel is

premature. 

Case 3:11-cv-08030-PGR Document 91 Filed 09/13/11 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

 However, the Court’s denial of the motion should not be construed as a ruling that

Defendant has fully complied with Rule 34. Inadequate compliance with discovery rules may

warrant Court intervention and an award of attorneys’ fees. 

The parties are again instructed to obey both the letter and spirit of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and to work together to manage discovery in the most efficient manner

practical.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production (Doc. 69) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Status Conference has been set for Monday,

October 31, 2011, at 11:15 a.m., before the Hon. Paul G. Rosenblatt, in Courtroom 601,

Phoenix, Arizona. 

DATED this 12th day of September, 2011.

Case 3:11-cv-08030-PGR Document 91 Filed 09/13/11 Page 3 of 3