Opinion
No. CIV 05-2655-PCT-DKD.
June 27, 2006
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' May 16, 2006 Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. #19). Plaintiffs seek to add a claim for negligent training and supervision which, it is contended, first came to counsel's attention during May 10, 2006 depositions. Defendants object to the Motion on the basis that it is untimely. Indeed, the Case Management Order prescribed a March 12, 2006 deadline for motions for leave to amend. Plaintiffs' Motion missed this deadline and the Court must consider whether it is fair to grant leave in these circumstances. The Court is inclined to follow its own admonition to the parties set forth in the Case Management Order: "The Deadlines Are Real. The parties are advised that the Court intends to enforce the deadlines set forth in this Order, and should plan their litigation activities accordingly." (emphasis in original).
Plaintiffs' Motion to File Pleading out of Time suggests that the Motion to Amend is only one day beyond the deadline. A correct reading of the Case Management Order demonstrates that the proposed Motion is two months past the deadline.
Requiring all parties to comply with established case management deadlines provides for a fairer litigation as all parties know what is permitted and what is not permitted. Allowing leave from such deadlines disrupts this level playing field of fairness and discourages future compliance with such deadlines. Against this backdrop, the Court should necessarily consider whether there is some development so unique that diligent counsel could not have complied with the Case Management Order. Here no reason is offered for not developing the new claim sooner or for not conducting the depositions earlier so as to afford time to seek leave to amend within the deadline to amend. In light of the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED DENYING the Motion to Amend (Doc. #19).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the Motion to File Pleading Out of Time (Doc. #18).