United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 57)
filed on July 25, 2017. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling
Defendant to respond to interrogatories and requests for
production propounded on June 8, 2017.
before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Stay of
Discovery Pending Ruling on Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 55)
filed on July 5, 2017. The motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 60 at
11). Defendant has filed a Reply. (R. Doc. 67).
Mapp (“Plaintiff”) initiated this copyright
infringement action on September 9, 2015. (R. Doc. 1).
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on September 15, 2015.
(R. Doc. 2). Plaintiff alleges that he is a record producer,
singer, and songwriter who owns a copyright with respect to
the sound recording of a musical composition. Plaintiff
asserts that UMG Recordings, Inc. (“Defendant”)
has infringed on his copyright by manufacturing,
distributing, and selling the copyrighted sound recording in
physical and streaming formats. Plaintiff seeks damages and
injunctive relief for the alleged copyright infringements and
violations of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.
December 4, 2015, the Court issued a Scheduling Order
setting, among other things, the deadline to amend the
pleadings and adding new parties and/or claims on March 4,
2016; the deadline for the parties to complete non-expert
discovery on June 3, 2016; the deadline to complete expert
discovery on June 3, 2016; and for trial to commence on May
1, 2017. (R. Doc. 15).
February 4, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for stay of
discovery (R. Doc. 17) pending resolution of its motion for
judgment on the pleadings (R. Doc. 16) filed the same day.
The Court denied the motion. (R. Doc. 29).
27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of the
deadlines. (R. Doc. 31). Plaintiff represented that he
“propounded interrogatories and requests for production
of documents, and consented to an extension to respond to the
discovery by February 4, 2016.” (R. Doc. 31 at 1).
Defendant ultimately provided discovery responses on April
30, 2016. (R. Doc. 30 at 1). Plaintiff specifically sought
leave only for extensions of the deadlines to amend the
complaint, disclose the identities and resumes of experts, to
submit expert reports, and to complete expert discovery. (R.
Doc. 31 at 2-3). The Court required expedited briefing on the
motion. (R. Doc. 32).
17, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiff's motion for extension of the deadlines. (R.
Doc. 34). The Court reset the deadlines related to expert
discovery and provided an extension of the deadline to file
dispositive motions. (R. Doc. 34 at 2). The Court
specifically stated that it did not “find good cause
for reopening the deadline for amending the pleadings.”
(R. Doc. 34 at 4). As Plaintiff did not seek an extension of
the deadline to complete non-expert discovery, much less
establish good cause for such an extension, and the
Defendants opposed any such extension (R. Doc. 33), the Court
did not extend the deadline to complete non-expert
discovery. Accordingly, non-expert discovery closed and the
deadline to file any discovery related motions occurred on
June 3, 2016.
27, 2016, Plaintiff filed another Motion for Extension of the
deadlines, seeking an order staying all remaining deadlines
until the district judge had ruled on a Defendant's
pending motion for judgment on the pleadings (R. Doc. 16)
filed on February 4, 2016. (R. Doc. 37).
August 5, 2016, after conferring with the district judge, the
undersigned found “good cause to stay all remaining
deadlines in this action, including the trial date.”
(R. Doc. 38 at 2). The undersigned specifically stated that
it was “not making a finding that there is good cause
to re-instate any deadlines that expired prior to the
filing” of Plaintiff's July 27, 2016 motion to
extend the deadlines. (R. Doc. 38 at 2). The expired
deadlines included the deadline to complete non-expert
discovery (expired on June 3, 2016); the deadline for
Plaintiff to disclose experts (expired on June 30, 2016); and
the deadline for Defendant to disclose experts (expired on
July 14, 2016). The undersigned further ordered the parties
to “contact the undersigned within 7
days of resolution of Defendant's Motion, so
that the Court may take appropriate action.” (R. Doc.
38 at 3).
September 21, 2016, the district judge granted
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
dismissing all federal claims with prejudice and all state
claims without prejudice. (R. Doc. 44).
subsequently filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (R.
3, 2017, the district judge granted Plaintiff's Motion to
Alter or Amend Judgment. (R. Doc. 48). The district judge
vacated the ruling dismissing Plaintiff's state law
claims, and granted Plaintiff 30 days to amend his Complaint
to properly allege diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. (R. Doc. 48 at 15). ...