Opinion
Civil No. 05-188 BB/LFG.
December 1, 2005
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs' opposed Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc. 32].
At the Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 scheduling conference conducted on April 13, 2005, the Court granted the parties the full allotment of discovery time requested. The Court's order [Doc. 9] allowed the parties until June 1, 2005 to join additional parties and to amend pleadings. Further, discovery was authorized to proceed through August 12, 2005. This was ample discovery scheduled given the fact that this is a relatively straightforward, routine claim.
The case management deadlines established by the Court, with the concurrence of the parties, were intended to bring this case to completion within the time limits contemplated by the district's Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan.
In mid June 2005, subsequent to the expiration of the deadline for amending the complaint, Plaintiffs' attorneys, Will Ferguson Associates, sought to withdraw from the case [Doc. 14]. On June 15, 2005, the Court declined to allow counsel to withdraw unless certain prerequisites were satisfied:
The Court will require that Will Ferguson Associates provide the Murrays with a copy of this order and notify them that upon the Court's entry of an order authorizing withdrawal, the Murrays will be representing themselves, as pro se litigants, and have the obligation to comply with all rules of practice and procedure applicable to licensed members of the bar, including the obligation to respond to any outstanding discovery requests. If Plaintiffs fail to provide discovery as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they may subject themselves to sanctions and/or dismissal of their case with prejudice for non-compliance with the rules of procedure or Court orders. Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 920 (10th Cir. 1992).
Will Ferguson Associates should advise the Murrays that a Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 settlement conference is scheduled for August 31, 2005, and apprise them of their joint responsibility to attend this court proceeding.
Plaintiffs should also be advised that a pretrial conference is scheduled in the United States District Court on January 26, 2006, and pursuant to the trial judge's scheduling requirements, jury instructions, exhibits and various motions must be submitted to the Court within the time established by Judge Black. Finally, the Murrays should be advised of the jury trial scheduled to commence on February 6, 2006.
[Doc. 15].
By mid July, Ferguson Associates complied with the Court's directive and, therefore, the Court allowed counsel to withdraw. The Court's order states in part:
Vera Murray and Donald Murray are deemed pro se litigants who have the obligation to comply with all rules of practice and procedure applicable to licensed members of the bar, including the obligation to respond to any outstanding discovery requests. Failure to provide discovery as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or failure to comply with other rules of procedure or Court directives may subject the Plaintiffs to sanctions and/or dismissal of their case with prejudice for non-compliance with the rules of procedures or Court orders. Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 920 (10th Cir. 1992).
[Doc. 16].
On July 21, 2005, the Court conducted a discovery/status conference because Defendant filed a motion for extension of discovery deadlines [Doc. 18]. The basis for Defendant's request was that Plaintiffs had failed to comply with their discovery obligations. Defendant's motion recited, and at the telephonic conference defense counsel indicated, that interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for production had been served on Plaintiffs' prior attorney, Donald Pinnock, on April 15, 2005, and that Plaintiffs failed to respond to the interrogatories, failed to produce documents and failed to admit or deny requests for admission.
Because the Court authorized counsel to withdraw, Defendant re-served a complete new set of interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for production personally on Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding their obligation to do so, and, further, notwithstanding the Court's specific directives in its prior orders, Plaintiffs had not responded to the discovery.
At the telephonic conference, the Court advised Vera Murray and Donald Murray that they were privileged to represent themselves, but were required to adhere to all rules of procedure, discovery obligations, Court orders and directives. The Court then directed the Plaintiffs to respond to or object to interrogatories served, to produce the documents sought or to make appropriate objections and to admit or deny all requests for admission previously served. The Court granted Plaintiffs twenty additional days from the date of the order, July 21, 2005, to comply. The Plaintiffs were apprised that any further failure to comply with their obligations could result in dismissal of their case with prejudice. Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds.
Good cause having been shown to extend the discovery deadlines due to Plaintiffs' failure to adhere to their discovery obligations, the Court extended discovery for two months until October 12, 2005. It was then necessary to modify other case management deadlines, and similar adjustments were made. The extended case management deadlines just barely allowed the Court to have pretrial proceedings completed prior to the pretrial conference, and thereby comply with the Court's obligations under the district's Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan.
Subsequently, Plaintiffs retained new counsel, Mr. L. Edward Glass. When Mr. Glass accepted this case, he was aware of the time limits and case management deadlines previously imposed. While counsel was new to the case, he was necessarily required to accept the case under the conditions and status that existed at the time of his acceptance. However, to accommodate his late entry into the case, and upon Mr. Glass's request, the Court granted one final extension and authorized discovery to be extended until November 10, 2005. The Court similarly extended the discovery motion deadline as well as the non-discovery pretrial motion deadline and the pretrial order submission deadlines.
Given the requirement that completed motions be submitted to the Court no less than 60 days prior to the pretrial conference, there is simply insufficient time available to extend any further case management deadlines and still comply with the Court's obligations under the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan.
Plaintiffs' present motion seeks to amend the complaint to add a new theory of recovery. This case has been prosecuted and defended through the discovery process based on the following contention:
Plaintiff Vera Murray was shopping and while walking down an aisle, she was struck by a steel shelf from a display area which had collapsed when another customer had attempted to remove a product from it. This blow occurred to her head thus knocking her unconscious. She sustained another concussion with additional injuries to her neck, shoulders, ribs and hip.
(Initial Pretrial Report, Plaintiffs' Contentions, Doc. 12).
Now, Plaintiffs seek to expand their claims to assert that "The proximate cause of the display stand collapsing and/or falling was the negligence of the Defendant failing to assemble it in the proper manner." (Proposed Amended Complaint at ¶ 6). Allowing the amendment at this late date would require reopening of discovery on yet another occasion and the creation of additional case management deadlines so as to allow appropriate motion practice to challenge the theory. As previously indicated, there is simply no additional time available to the Court that would allow modification of the deadlines without causing the Court to violate its obligations under the district's Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan.
The Court would be forced to vacate the pretrial conference and the trial, and require the parties to engage in a new round of discovery and motion practice, significantly increasing the costs of proceeding, all in contravention to the cost-savings provisions of the Civil Justice Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq.
Courts have an affirmative obligation to ensure that civil cases proceed efficiently, economically and expeditiously to final resolution. Indeed, this is one of the primary goals of the Civil Justice Reform Act. In United States v. Diamond Industries, Inc., 145 F.R.D. 48 (D. Del. 1992), the court commented on its obligations to enforce time deadlines.
The CJRA requires district courts to manage litigation with a view toward reducing delay and cost in bringing cases to trial. In this regard, the CJRA sets time limits that are to be met by the trial courts for all pre-trial proceedings and ultimately trial. 28 U.S.C. § 473(a) (2)(B). The only permitted exception to these time limits countenanced by the CJRA is for a "complex case." 28 U.S.C. § 473 (a)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).Id. at 48.
The Court recognizes that it should not be driven only by considerations of efficiency and economy. Here, Plaintiffs have failed to advance even a single compelling reason why a modification should be allowed at this late date. The original deadline for amending the complaint elapsed long ago. Plaintiffs cannot even argue that the deadline elapsed at a time when Plaintiffs were representing themselves as pro se litigants and, therefore, didn't know better. To the contrary, Plaintiffs were represented by counsel, Mr. Pinnock, through the deadline for amending pleadings.
Case management has become a significant responsibility imposed on courts by Congress. The importance of case management cannot be overstated. National studies on the management of civil cases in the nation's federal courts confirm the importance of case management plans as an integral factor in meeting the goals of the Civil Justice Reform Act.
The primary finding was that greater and earlier judicial control over civil cases yields faster rates of disposition. The courts with the least amounts of delay characteristically kept stricter control of the case by precise scheduling of the cut-off date and other deadlines. The study concluded that a court can handle its caseload rapidly only if it takes the initiative to require lawyers to complete their work in a timely fashion.
Flanders, Steven, Case Management and Court Management in United States Courts 17 (Federal Judicial Center 1977).
Plaintiffs' motion to amend is untimely; allowing the amendment would prejudice Defendant; allowing the amendment would compel the Court to violate its obligations under the district's Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan; and allowing the amendment at this juncture would be contrary to the Court's obligations under the Civil Justice Reform Act. For all of these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion to amend.