Opinion
No. 3:04-CV-1350-H.
April 20, 2005
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The District Court referred Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer, filed March 15, 2005, to the United States Magistrate Judge for recommendation. Plaintiff filed a response to the motion. A hearing is not required.
A motion to amend pleadings filed outside of the time limits set in the Court's Scheduling Order are governed by FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b), rather than the more lenient standards of rule 15(a). SW Enter., L.L.C. v. South Trust Bank of Alabama, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535-36 (5th Cir. 2003). The standard of review under Rule 16(b) is "good cause." Id. at 536. In determining whether a party has shown "good cause," a court must consider "(1) the explanation for the failure to timely move for leave to amend' (2) the importance of the amendment; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the amendment; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice." Id.
Defendant seeks leave to assert nine additional defenses. The deadline for amending pleadings was November 15, 2005, four months before Defendant's motion was filed. Much of the amended information could have been alleged in the original answer, filed July 19, 2004, or before the deadline for amendments. Defendant's contentions that the additional defenses could not have been anticipated until Plaintiff's deposition was taken are not supported by the record. The information was in Defendant's possession and available. Defendant does not provide a rational and coherent reason for waiting until four months after the deadline to attempt to amend the answer. This Court finds that the prejudice to Plaintiff if the amendment were allowed outweighs Defendant's claims of prejudice.
Further, the Court has granted a limited request for the extension of the discovery deadline and refused additional requests to further extend the discovery deadline. The filing of an amended answer at this late stage in the proceeding would necessitate additional discovery and ultimately, a second continuance of the trial setting. Plaintiff has not shown "good cause" for the amendment under Rule 16(b). The Court should deny Defendant leave to amend the answer at this late stage in the proceeding.
It is so RECOMMENDED.