Opinion
No. 01 C 7206
June 7, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant wants to file a counterclaim and plaintiff objects. Discovery, which was referred to Magistrate Judge Keys, was still open, with a number of depositions still to be taken. Discovery is to close in July, with defendant having assured Judge Keys that it can complete discovery on the counterclaim by then.
Most of the counterclaim is an offensive repackaging of the defensive position long known to plaintiff. Plaintiff claims it is entitled to compensation under a consulting agreement for recommendations for cost savings it made. Defendant contends otherwise, arguing that plaintiff made a very general recommendation that was not helpful and, at most, broadly included a much more specific business decision defendant had already studied and decided. To that extent the counterclaim can hardly be deemed prejudicial to plaintiff, it should not impact discovery, and it should be allowed.
The real crux of the amendment dispute appears to center on defendant's claim that plaintiff, as a way of doing business, makes general recommendations to its clients and then sues for consulting fees for any change within that umbrella. That does mean broader No. 01C7206 Page 2 discovery. But, says defendant, plaintiff dragged its feet in providing information about other claims it had made, and plaintiff was not provided with the information justifying that allegation until just before the motion for leave to file the counterclaim.
If that is so, then defendant should be allowed to go forward. We think, however, that Judge Keys, who has a hands-on knowledge of the course of discovery, is in a far better position than this court to determine whether that is so or what the circumstances may be, and thus to judge whether the introduction of that additional factor now is appropriate. We refer the motion to him for ruling.