United States District Court, D. Maine
DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND
John
C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge.
In this
action, Plaintiffs Jayme and Todd Dodge seek to recover
damages for injuries allegedly sustained during an incident
that occurred on July 31, 2015, at the Darling's
Waterfront Pavilion in Bangor.
The
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend
Complaint, through which motion Plaintiffs seek to join a
John Doe defendant. (ECF No. 20.) Defendants oppose the
motion.
Background
Plaintiffs
allege that some of the individual defendants assaulted them
while providing security services during a concert on July
31, 2015. (Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 5.) As alleged,
Defendant Bell directed Defendant Gagne to have Plaintiffs
removed from the concert venue, and Defendants Bernosky,
Bridges, Maley, and Jane Doe removed Defendants as directed.
(Id. ¶ 26.) Plaintiffs assert various
additional claims, including civil rights violations, against
all of the defendants.
In
support of the motion to amend, Plaintiffs represent that in
his recent deposition, Plaintiff Todd Dodge testified that a
male security guard, who has not yet been identified, kicked
and directed vulgarities toward Mr. Dodge while Mr. Dodge was
on the ground. (Plaintiffs' Reply ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs
request leave to join the unidentified security guard as a
John Doe defendant.
On
August 23, 2017, the Court issued a scheduling order, which
designated November 8, 2017, as the deadline for amendment of
the pleadings and joinder of parties. (ECF No. 7.) Although
the Court, on two occasions, has amended the scheduling order
at the parties' request, the Court did not extend the
deadline for the amendment of the pleadings and joinder of
the parties. (ECF Nos. 9, 11.) The discovery deadline is June
14, 2018. (ECF No. 11.)
Discussion
Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), a party can
amend a pleading “as a matter of course” subject
to certain time constraints. However, when a party seeks to
amend a complaint more than 21 days after the filing of a
responsive pleading, leave of court is required. Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2). In such a case, a court is to grant leave to amend
“freely” when “justice so requires.”
Id.; see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182 (1962) (“In the absence of any apparent or declared
reason-such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on
the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment,
futility of amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the
rules require, be ‘freely given.'”).
The
standard is elevated when the motion to amend is filed after
the court's scheduling order deadline for the amendment
of pleadings. When a party files a motion to amend after the
deadline established for amendments in the scheduling order,
the party must demonstrate good cause to amend the scheduling
order. Johnson v. Spencer Press of Maine, Inc., 211
F.R.D. 27, 30 (D. Me. 2002); El-Hajj v. Fortis Benefits
Ins. Co., 156 F.Supp.2d 27, 34 (D. Me. 2001);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). A court's assessment of good cause
“focuses on the diligence (or lack thereof) of the
moving party more than it does on any prejudice to the
party-opponent.” Steir v. Girl Scouts of the
USA, 383 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir. 2004). “Particularly
disfavored are motions to amend whose timing prejudices the
opposing party by ‘requiring a re-opening of discovery
with additional costs, a significant postponement of the
trial, and a likely major alteration in trial tactics and
strategy.'” Id. (quoting Acosta-Mestre
v. Hilton Int'l of P.R., Inc., 156 F.3d 49, 52 (1st
Cir. 1998)). Ultimately, it falls to the court's
discretion whether to grant a motion to amend, and that
discretion should be exercised on the basis of the particular
facts and circumstances of the case. Id.
In
assessing whether good cause exists in this case, the Court
notes that Plaintiff Todd Dodge was evidently aware of the
potential John Doe defendant's involvement in the July
31, 2015, incident when the incident occurred. That is,
according to Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Todd Dodge disclosed the
actions of the proposed defendant during his deposition.
(Reply ¶¶ 2, 3.) Plaintiffs cannot reasonably argue
that they were unaware of a possible claim against the
proposed John Doe defendant until the deposition. In
addition, because Plaintiffs seek to join a John Doe
defendant, the Court lacks any information about the
individual, including his current location, his availability,
and his possible discovery needs. The Court, therefore,
cannot assess the impact of the proposed amendment on the
future course of the case. Under the circumstances,
particularly given the impending discovery deadline, which
has been extended on two occasions, Plaintiffs have failed to
establish the required good cause to amend the scheduling
order to permit the joinder of the proposed John Doe
defendant.[1]
Conclusion
Based
on the foregoing analysis, the Court denies Plaintiffs'
...