A defendant may not merely claim prejudice, but "must establish that it would be 'unfairly disadvantaged or deprived of the opportunity to present facts or evidence which it would have offered" had the amendment come sooner. Synthes Inc. v. Marotta, 281 F.R.D. 217, 228 (E.D. Pa. 2012). Prejudice must accompany delay, where amendment is opposed based on the passage of time, as even a lengthy delay, without more, is insufficient to justify denial of leave to amend.

“Ultimately, ‘the obligation of the district court in its disposition of the motion is to articulate the imposition or prejudice caused by the delay, and to balance those concerns against the movant's reasons for delay.'” Synthes, Inc. v. Marotta, No. 11-1566, 2012 WL 748758, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2012) (quoting Coventry v. U.S. Steel Corp., 856 F.2d 514, 520 (3d Cir. 1988)). Nevertheless, “[e]ven if the moving party does not explain the reason for delay, ‘such delay itself will not serve as a basis for denying [the] motion unless the defendant is prejudiced.'”

Counsel does not purport to represent the interests of the Proposed Defendants. In Synthes, Inc. v. Marotta, 281 F.R.D. 217 (E.D.Pa. 2012), the Court declined to consider a similar argument challenging the Court's personal jurisdiction over proposed defendants:

Nevertheless, the Court acknowledges that “delay alone does not justify denying a motion to amend.” Synthes, Inc. v. Marotta, 281 F.R.D. 217, 225 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (citing Cureton v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 252 F.3d 267, 273 (3d Cir. 2001)). “Rather, it is only where delay becomes undue, placing an unwarranted burden on the court, or prejudicial, placing an unfair burden on the opposing party, that denial of a motion to amend is appropriate.” Id. (cleaned up).

'” Synthes, Inc. v. Marotta, 281 F.R.D. 217, 229 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (quoting Aruanno v. New Jersey, No. 06-cv-00296, 2009 WL 114556, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 15, 2009)). “If a proposed amendment is not clearly futile, then denial of leave to amend is improper.” Id. (quoting 6 Charles Allen Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1487 (2d ed. 1990)).

“Implicit in the concept of ‘undue delay' is the premise that Plaintiffs, in the exercise of due diligence, could have sought relief from the court earlier.” Synthes, Inc. v. Marotta, 281 F.R.D. 217, 225 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (internal citation omitted)

“In the Third Circuit, delay alone does not justify denying a motion to amend.” Synthes, Inc. v. Marotta, 281 F.R.D. 217, 225 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (citing Cureton v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 252 F.3d 267, 273 (3d Cir. 2001)). Rather, the delay must either be undue, such that it places “an unwarranted burden on the court, ” or it must be prejudicial, such that it places “an unfair burden on the opposing party.” Synthes,

“In the Third Circuit, delay alone does not justify denying a motion to amend.” Synthes, Inc. v. Marotta, 281 F.R.D. 217, 225 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (citing Cureton v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 252 F.3d 267, 273 (3d Cir. 2001)). Rather, the delay must either be undue, such that it places “an unwarranted burden on the court, ” or it must be prejudicial, such that it places “an unfair burden on the opposing party.” Synthes,

“In the Third Circuit, delay alone does not justify denying a motion to amend.” Synthes, Inc. v. Marotta, 281 F.R.D. 217, 225 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (citing Cureton v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 252 F.3d 267, 273 (3d Cir. 2001)). Rather, the delay must either be undue, such that it places “an unwarranted burden on the court, ” or it must be prejudicial, such that it places “an unfair burden on the opposing party.” Synthes,

At the same time, though, “the need for additional discovery due to amendment does not, without more, prejudice the non-moving party.” Synthes, Inc. v. Marotta, 281 F.R.D. 217, 228 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (citing Dole v. Arco Chem. Co., 921 F.2d 484, 488 (3d Cir. 1990)). And Progressive has put itself in this position by allegedly obstructing settlement efforts.