Ellegood et al v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Filing
43
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs have not offered sufficient reasons for an extension of the deadline to amend the complaint or for an extension of the expert disclosure deadlines. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion fo r Leave to File First Amended Complaint and to Extend the Expert Witness Disclosure Deadlines for Both Parties (Doc. 38 ) is DENIED as further set out in the opinion and order. Signed by Honorable Judge William Keith Watkins on 12/9/2022. (dmn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
DAKIN ELLEGOOD and LINDSEY
MYERS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GREYHOUND LINES, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 2:21-CV-303-WKW
[WO]
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint and to Extend the Expert Witness Disclosure Deadlines for Both Parties.
(Doc. # 38.) Plaintiffs seek to add a supplemental state-law claim for negligent
hiring and retention of Defendant’s bus driver, Jewell Gilliam-Wells, and to extend
the expert disclosure deadlines for thirty days. Defendant opposes the motion.
(Doc. # 41.) The motion is due to be denied.
A.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint
The deadline for Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings expired under the
scheduling order on July 11, 2022. (Doc. # 33 (Uniform Scheduling Order).)
Plaintiffs did not move for leave to amend the complaint until October 18, 2022.
(Doc. # 38.)
A party requesting leave to amend a pleading after the time required by the
district court’s scheduling order “must first demonstrate good cause under Rule
16(b) before [the court] will consider whether amendment is proper under Rule
15(a).” Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998). A district
court’s scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s
consent.”
“This good cause standard precludes
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
modification unless the schedule cannot be met despite the diligence of the party
seeking the extension.” Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1418 (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). If the plaintiff makes the required good cause showing, the district
court may give leave to amend the complaint and “should freely give leave when
justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Here, good cause is absent because Plaintiffs have not shown diligence in
belatedly moving to amend the complaint.
Plaintiffs originally asserted that
Defendants’ discovery responses—received on August 1, 2022—provided the
evidentiary foundation for seeking to add a state-law claim to their complaint. (Doc.
# 38 at 1.) Knowing that the deadline to amend the pleadings already had ended
under the scheduling order, Plaintiffs waited more than two-and-a-half-months—
until October 18, 2022—to move to amend the complaint, and their motion does not
explain why they waited so long after receiving Defendant’s discovery responses.
In their reply brief, Plaintiffs change course, suggesting that they intended to depose
2
the bus driver prior to seeking leave to amend the complaint but that they did not
learn until September 21, 2022, that the bus driver has a medical condition that
“precludes her being deposed or testifying at trial.” (Doc. # 42.) This new
justification conflicts with Plaintiffs’ original assertion and does not show diligence
in waiting to alert the court and defense counsel on October 18, 2022, of the desire
to amend the Complaint. Also, at this late date, the amendment likely would require
a trial continuance as the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines are near.1
For these reasons, the untimely motion to amend the Complaint will be denied.
B.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend the Expert Disclosure Deadlines
Plaintiffs moved to amend the deadline to disclose expert witnesses on the last
date allowed for Plaintiffs to make their disclosures. (Doc. # 38.) In their motion,
Plaintiffs offer no explanation why they need an additional thirty days “to consider
whether to utilize the services of an expert witness.” (Doc. # 38 at 1.) In their reply,
Plaintiffs argue for the first time that they need an extension because “no depositions
of [P]laintiffs have yet been taken, and an expert is needed to examine such
depositions in order to render an opinion.” (Doc. # 42 at 7.) Absent any good reason
shown for the delay in scheduling Plaintiffs’ depositions (not to mention the delay
in asserting this new reason), the delay appears to have been avoidable and is an
1
The outcome likely would have been different had Plaintiffs promptly filed their motion
for leave to amend the complaint after their August 1 receipt of Defendants’ discovery responses.
3
insufficient reason to justify an “eleventh hour” motion for an extension of the expert
disclosure deadlines. (Doc. # 33 at 4 (cautioning that “‘eleventh hour’ extension
requests and motions will be denied outright”).)
C.
Conclusion
Plaintiffs have not offered sufficient reasons for an extension of the deadline
to amend the complaint or for an extension of the expert disclosure deadlines.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Complaint and to Extend the Expert Witness Disclosure Deadlines for
Both Parties (Doc. # 38) is DENIED.
DONE this 9th day of December, 2022.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?