ANGEL LEARNING, INC. v. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HARCOURT PUBLISHING COMPANY

Filing 284

ORDER denying 270 Motion for Leave to File Summary Judgment on HMH's Counterclaim and Partial Summary Judgment on Count I of its Complaint. Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 4/14/2011. (See order for specific details.) (REO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ANGEL LEARNING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HARCOURT
PUBLISHING COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:08-cv-01259-LJM-DML

ORDER ON ANGEL LEARNING INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON HMH’S COUNTERCLAIM AND PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON COUNT I OF ITS COMPLAINT
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s, Angel Learning, Inc. (“ANGEL”),
Motion for Leave to File Summary Judgment on HMH’s Counterclaim and Partial Summary
Judgment on Count I of its Complaint (“Motion for Leave”) [Dkt. No. 270]. ANGEL seeks
to file a Motion for Summary Judgment more than a year after the dispositive motions
deadline on the issue of damages owed to defendant, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing
Company (“HMH”), as a result of ANGEL’s breach of warranty. HMH contends that the
Motion for Leave is untimely and effectively a second attempt by ANGEL to have the Court
reconsider its August 12, 2010 Order [Dkt. No. 248] (“Summary Judgment Order”). ANGEL
acknowledges that it raised similar arguments in the briefing leading up to the Summary
Judgment Order, but the Court stated that it would not be prudent to discuss the damages
issue at that time. See Summary Judgment Order at 20.
A Case Management Plan, including all deadlines contained within it, “may be
modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c). “In this
context, ‘good cause’ means that the deadline could not be met despite the party’s

diligence.” Sulkoff v. United States, No. IP-01-1341-C, 2003 WL 1903349, at *3 (S.D. Ind.
Jan. 29, 2003) (Tinder, J.). Despite ANGEL’s assurance that allowing the Motion for
Summary Judgment will “streamline” the case, ANGEL has provided no reason why it could
not have filed this Motion more than a year ago as required by the Case Management Plan
or, at the very least, as soon as the Summary Judgment Order concluded that ANGEL had
breached certain warranties but failed to address damages. See Dkt. No. 116 (setting
dispositive motions deadline of February 1, 2010). Therefore, ANGEL’s Motion for Leave
[Dkt. No. 270] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of April 2011.

________________________________
LARRY J. McKINNEY, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution to:
Sean P. Burke
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]

Irwin B. Schwartz
BUSINESS LITIGATION ASSOCIATES,
P.C.
ischwartz@business-litigation-associates.
com

Michael T. McNally
ICE MILLER LLP
[e-mail]

T. Joseph Wendt
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]

Scott E. Murray
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]

2