Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08063/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08063-2/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, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HARCOURT

PUBLISHING COMPANY, AND R.R.

DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-8063-PCT-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to extend time to file a motion to amend

the complaint. The motion to extend time was filed on November 3, 2008. Per this Court’s

scheduling order, any motion to amend the complaint was due on November 3, 2008. (Doc.

#60). Plaintiff claims that he could not file his motion by that deadline because of various

discovery issues he has had with Defendants.

The parties have been in discovery since at least September 29, 2008. Per the

scheduling order, any discovery disputes must be raised before the Court by the parties

calling the Court on a conference call. To date, no discovery disputes have been raised.

Thus, the Court does not find Plaintiff’s allegations regarding discovery to be good cause for

extending this deadline because Plaintiff did not properly raise any discovery issues before

the deadline to file a motion to amend ran. Further, the Court agrees with Defendants that

Plaintiff’s argument that he wishes to amend his complaint merely to add more facts to his

Case 3:07-cv-08063-JAT Document 74 Filed 12/12/08 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 -

already filed claims does not show good cause to extend this deadline. Accordingly, the

Court will deny the motion to extend this deadline. Should Plaintiff choose to later seek to

amend his complaint, he must first overcome the timeliness issue under Rule 16, before

showing why leave to amend is appropriate under Rule 15. See Jackson v. Laureate, Inc.,

186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). 

Finally, the Court hereby makes clear that none of the discovery issues referenced in

Plaintiff’s motion to extend time have been properly raised before the Court nor are they

under consideration by the Court. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff seeks a ruling on any of

these discovery issues, Plaintiff must present the issues to the Court using the procedure

outlined in this Court’s scheduling order. (Doc. #60 at 4). 

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to extend time to file a motion to amend the

complaint (Doc. #67) is denied.

DATED this 12th day of December, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-08063-JAT Document 74 Filed 12/12/08 Page 2 of 2