Bean et al v. Pearson Education Incorporated
Plaintiff: Tom Bean and Dennis Kunkel Microscopy Incorporated
Defendant: Pearson Education Incorporated
Case Number: 3:2011cv08030
Filed: February 25, 2011
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office: Prescott Division Office
County: Coconino
Presiding Judge: Paul G Rosenblatt
Nature of Suit: Property Rights: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
June 11, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 206 ORDER, granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 165 summary judgment is granted to Plaintiffs on the issue of Pearson's liability for copyright infringement for each instance listed in Exhibits A and B to Plaintiffs' motion; denying Pearson's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 170 . Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 6/11/13.(REW)
June 5, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 198 ORDER granting in part 168 , 175 , 187 , 191 Motions to File Under Seal and Notice of Withdrawal of Certain Confidentiality Designations. ORDERED The following materials shall be filed under seal: Doc. 167 , Ex's C, D, E, and F, and Doc. 186 , Ex's A-I, A-2, D, E, G, I, J, L, O, and P. FURTHER ORDERED that remaining documents shall be filed publicly. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 6/4/13.(MAP)
November 14, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 163 ORDER, granting in part Plaintiffs' 118 Motion to Compel; granting in part Defendants' 127 Motion to Compel. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 11/14/12.(REW)
July 18, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 151 ORDER granting the Parties' 145 Joint Motion for Continuance; vacating the pretrial conference set for 7/23/12, the trial date of 8/21/12, and the remaining deadlines set forth in the Court's 106 Scheduling Order of 1/5/12; oral argument on the Parties' Motions to Compel is set for 7/31/12 at 11:00 a.m. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 7/18/12. (REW)
May 15, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 125 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 110 Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 5/15/12.(REW)
September 13, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 91 ORDER that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production (Doc. 69) is denied.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. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 9/12/2011.(TCA)
August 16, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 84 ORDER granting 68 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 8/16/2011.(TCA)
June 29, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 64 PROTECTIVE ORDER Entered. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 6/29/11. (DMT)
June 28, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 63 ORDER granting 47 Defendant's Motion for Entry of Protective Order. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 6/27/11.(DMT)
May 17, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 46 ORDER that Defendant's 26 Motion to Dismiss Case is DENIED IN PART with respect to Count 1, alleging copyright infringement. The motion is GRANTED with respect to the images contained in the compilations identified as VA 863-783, VA 863-785, V A 1-115-519, VA 1-132-628, VA 1-288-586, and VA 1-408-166; that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Case (Doc. 26) is GRANTED with respect to Count 2, alleging fraud; that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint with respect to Count 2. The amended co mplaint must comply with Rule 8(a) and shall be filed no later than 30 days from the date of this Order. It is further ordered that Defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 05/17/11. (ESL)
May 2, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 40 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 35 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply; the response Plaintiffs filed on 4/19/11 (Doc. 35, Ex. A), is deemed filed as of that date. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 5/2/11.(REW)
March 30, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 3/28/11.(REW)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bean et al v. Pearson Education Incorporated
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Tom Bean
Represented By: Christopher Seidman
Represented By: Maurice James Harmon
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dennis Kunkel Microscopy Incorporated
Represented By: Maurice James Harmon
Represented By: Christopher Seidman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Pearson Education Incorporated
Represented By: Dana E Becker
Represented By: Christine Alison Hammerle
Represented By: Philip R Higdon
Represented By: David W Marston, Jr
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?