A need to extend the discovery period and therefore delay the proceedings supports a district court's finding of prejudice from a delayed motion to amend the complaint. E.g.,Lockheed Martin Corp., 194 F.3d at 986 (citing Solomon v. North Am. Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 151 F.3d 1132, 1139 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming the district court's denial of motion to amend pleadings filed on the eve of the discovery deadline)); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming denial of motion to amend filed shortly before discovery cutoff because "amended pleading would have prejudiced defendant, which would then have had a very limited amount of time to respond"); see also Goolsby v. Carrasco, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111510 *13 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ("Given the looming discovery deadlines, the Court concludes that these new defendants would be significantly prejudiced by the amendment"). The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion is set for April 18, 2011.