Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03922/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03922-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 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 1

The proposed TAC is attached as Exhibit Q to the Declaration of William E. Weiss,

filed July 25, 2005.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL TURTLE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SANCTUARY RECORDS GROUP, INC., et

al.,

Defendants /

No. C-03-3922 MMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO AMEND SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT; VACATING

HEARING

Before the Court is the motion, filed July 25, 2005 by plaintiffs Joel Turtle and

Matthew Kaufman pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for leave to

file a proposed Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”).1

 Defendants Sanctuary Records Group,

Inc., BMG Distribution, 5.1 Label Group, LLC, Sanctuary Records Group Ltd., and

Sanctuary Group, PLC have filed opposition, to which plaintiffs have replied. Having read

and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court

deems the matter appropriate for decision on the papers, VACATES the hearing scheduled

for September 9, 2005, and rules as follows.

By the instant motion, plaintiffs seek to amend in three respects. First, plaintiffs

seek to add a claim that three existing defendants, specifically, 5.1 Label Group, LLC, 5.1

Case 3:03-cv-03922-MMC Document 204 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 4
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 Court notes, however, that the proposed TAC does not name Silverline

Records as a party to plaintiff’s claim for interference with prospective economic

advantage.

3

The Court notes, however, that although plaintiffs’ motion indicates that the “online”

allegation is made only as to Sanctuary Inc., the proposed TAC alleges that all

“Defendants” have sold infringing products online.

2

Entertainment Group, LLC, and Silverline Records (collectively, “5.1 Defendants”), have

interfered with plaintiffs’ prospective economic advantage with third party EMI Canada. 

(See Pls.’ P. & A. in Support of Mot. at 2:7-10; Proposed TAC at 11:8-13).2

 Second,

plaintiffs seek to add two new defendants, specifically, BMG Direct and Columbia House. 

(See Proposed TAC ¶¶ 11, 12.) Third, plaintiffs seek to add an allegation that existing

defendant Sanctuary Records Group Inc. (“Sanctuary Inc.”) has sold certain infringing

products “via online sale.” (See Pls.’ P. & A. in Support of Mot., filed July 25, 2005, at 2:10-

13; Proposed TAC at 5:9.)3

Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so

requires.” Once a district court has set a deadline to file a motion to amend, however, a

plaintiff’s “ability to amend his complaint [is] governed by Rule 16(b), not Rule 15(a).” See

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F. 2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). “Good

cause,” for the purposes of Rule 16(b), focuses on “the diligence of the party seeking the

amendment.” See id. at 609.

On September 13, 2004, following a case management conference conducted on

September 10, 2004, the Court issued its Pretrial Preparation Order and included therein

the following orders: “Plaintiff to file any motion to amend no later than October 29, 2004. 

Plaintiff to file motion to add additional parties no later than December 3, 2004.” (See

Pretrial Preparation Order, filed September 13, 2004, at 2.) Although plaintiffs timely filed,

on October 29, 2004, a motion to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint, which

motion was granted, the instant motion was not filed until July 25, 2005, well beyond the

deadlines set by the Court. Consequently, plaintiffs must show “good cause” to modify the

deadline.

Case 3:03-cv-03922-MMC Document 204 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 4
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

4

Plaintiffs argue that they seek to avoid filing a new complaint against the 5.1

Defendants. Such argument, however, bear on their lack of diligence.

3

With respect to plaintiffs’ request to add the claim that the 5.1 Defendants have

interfered with plaintiffs’ relationship with EMI Canada, the Court finds that plaintiffs have

failed to show good cause to modify the October 29, 2004 deadline to amend. Defendants

assert that, according to evidence plaintiffs have submitted, plaintiffs knew of the basis for

this claim in January 2003, because they knew then that their relationship with EMI Canada

had been disrupted, (see Weiss Decl. Ex. F), and plaintiff knew before January 2003 of the

5.1 Defendants’ conduct now claimed to constitute interference, (see id. Ex. M). In reply,

plaintiffs fail to respond to these assertions, and, more importantly, fail to articulate any

reason why they did not move to amend this claim within the prior deadline set by the

Court.4 Further, given that the deadline to complete fact discovery is September 23, 2005,

and that discovery would, at a minimum, need to be taken from a third party in addition to

the parties to the new claim, it is readily apparent that allowing amendment to include such

new claim would inevitably lead to delays in the pretrial schedule and trial schedule. 

With respect to plaintiffs’ request to add two new defendants, the Court again finds

that plaintiffs have failed to show good cause to modify the previously set deadline, which,

with respect to adding a new party, was December 3, 2004. According to plaintiffs, they

learned of the alleged wrongful conduct by BMG Direct in February 2005, (see Pls.’ P. & A.

in Support of Mot. at 3:25), and first learned of the alleged wrongful conduct by Columbia

House in “early 2005,” (see id. at 4:1). Given plaintiffs’ representation that they obtained

such knowledge after December 3, 2004, plaintiffs have explained why they could not have

sought to add such parties before that date. Plaintiffs fail, however, to explain why they

waited five months, in the case of BMG Direct, and an unspecified number of months, in

the case of Columbia House, to seek to add such parties to the instant action. 

Consequently, plaintiffs have not shown they acted diligently in seeking to add the

proposed new parties. Further, at this stage of the proceedings, with trial scheduled for

early March 2006, it is virtual certainty that the pretrial and trial schedule could not be

Case 3:03-cv-03922-MMC Document 204 Filed 09/06/05 Page 3 of 4
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

5

For example, the deadline for filing a dispositive motion is December 9, 2005;

substantial pretrial filings are due in early February.

4

accommodated in the event that two new parties were to be added to the action.5

Finally, with respect to plaintiffs’ request to add an allegation that Sanctuary Inc. has

sold infringing products online, the Court finds that plaintiffs, having asserted they first

learned of such activity in June 2005 and having moved within the following month for leave

to allege such activity as part of the instant action, have acted diligently. Indeed,

defendants do not argue that plaintiffs have not been diligent in moving for such relief. 

Moreover, given that plaintiffs have already alleged a claim of infringement against

Sanctuary Inc. involving the recordings at issue, and, further, that Sanctuary Inc.

“continue[s] to distribute, promote, sell, market and use [p]laintiffs’ copyrighted works,” (see

SAC ¶ 27), it does not appear that Sanctuary Inc. would suffer any prejudice should such

amendment be allowed. Accordingly, the Court will afford plaintiffs leave to file a TAC that,

in addition to the allegations set forth in the SAC, includes an allegation that Sanctuary Inc.

has sold infringing products online.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs’ motion to amend is hereby GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part. Specifically, plaintiffs are afforded leave to file a TAC that, in

addition to the allegations set forth in the SAC, includes an allegation that Sanctuary Inc.

has sold infringing products online. In all other respects, the motion is hereby DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ TAC shall be filed no later than September 12, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-03922-MMC Document 204 Filed 09/06/05 Page 4 of 4