AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. v. Integral Consulting, Inc. et al

Filing 189

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 148 Motion to Amend/Correct ; AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. is required to E-FILE the amended document (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9

AMEC ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.,

10

Plaintiff,

11
v.

12

INTEGRAL CONSULTING, INC., et
al.,

13
14

Defendants.
15

) Case No. 12-cv-01735-SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE
) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16
17

I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. ("AMEC")

18
19

brings this action against Defendant Integral Consulting, Inc.

20

("Integral"), asserting that several former AMEC employees

21

misappropriated AMEC's confidential information or trade secrets

22

when those employees left AMEC to work at Integral.

23

for leave to file an amended complaint to add a new defendant.

24

motion is fully briefed 1 and suitable for disposition without oral

25

argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

26

forth below, AMEC's motion is GRANTED.

27

///

28

1

AMEC now moves
The

For the reasons set

ECF Nos. 148 ("Mot."), 164 ("Opp'n"), 166 ("Reply").

1
2
3

II.

BACKGROUND
The following facts are taken from the Complaint.

ECF No. 1

4

("Compl.").

AMEC and Integral are both environmental consulting

5

firms.

6

hydrologist working for AMEC, announced that he intended to leave

7

AMEC to work for Integral.

8

shortly before separating from AMEC, Mr. Conti met with at least

9

three other AMEC employees, including Matthew Hillyard, David

Compl. ¶¶ 15-16.

In August 2011, Edward Conti, a

Id. ¶¶ 37-38, 52.

AMEC alleges that,

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Averill, and Jagbir Dhaliwal.

11

encouraged them to follow him to Integral.

12

contends that, after resigning, Mr. Conti copied hundreds of

13

confidential AMEC files from his work computers to USB mass-storage

14

devices.

15

Integral.

16

transferred hundreds of confidential AMEC files to mass-storage

17

devices.

18

Averill to Integral.

19

Mr. Conti relied upon the confidential AMEC documents that Mr.

20

Conti took to target Mr. Averill so that Mr. Averill would convince

21

AMEC clients to move their business to Integral.

22

further alleges that Integral used the confidential information

23

taken by Mr. Conti and Mr. Hillyard to entice clients and projects

24

away from AMEC to Integral.

Id. ¶ 54.
Id. ¶ 55.

Id. ¶ 56.

According to AMEC, Mr. Conti
Id. ¶ 53.

AMEC

Mr. Conti proceeded to recruit Mr. Hillyard to
AMEC alleges that Mr. Hillyard, too,

Mr. Conti also recruited Ms. Dhaliwal and Mr.
Id. ¶¶ 58-59.

AMEC alleges that Integral and

Id. ¶ 60.

AMEC

Id. ¶¶ 62-80.

25
26
27
28

III. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), a party may
amend its pleading as a matter of course within twenty-one days

2

1

after serving it or twenty-one days after the filing of a

2

responsive pleading or a Rule 12(b), (e), or (f) motion.

3

Thereafter, "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing

4

party's written consent or the court's leave."

5

15(a)(2).

6

leave [to amend] when justice so requires," and the Ninth Circuit

7

has stressed Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments.

8

Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989).

9

However, leave need not be granted "where the amendment of the

Fed. R. Civ. P.

Rule 15(a)(2) provides that courts should "freely give

Ascon

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

complaint would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought

11

in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue

12

delay."

Id.

13
14
15

IV.

DISCUSSION
AMEC seeks leave of the Court to file an amended complaint

16

that adds Mr. Averill as a defendant.

17

arguments focus on whether AMEC unduly delayed in adding Mr.

18

Averill as a defendant, and whether such delay prejudices Integral

19

or Mr. Averill.

20

that AMEC knew or should have known that Mr. Averill was a

21

potential defendant months, or even years, ago.

22

that "[t]he parties have appeared before Judge Cousins on numerous

23

occasions arguing these exact issues pertaining to Averill’s 500GB

24

external hard drive" and that AMEC raised allegations against Mr.

25

Averill in the original complaint and filings submitted in October

26

and November 2013.

27
28

Mot. at 2-4.

See Opp'n at 4-6, Reply at 1-5.

The parties'

Integral argues

Integral asserts

Opp'n at 4-5.

AMEC responds that it did not realize Mr. Averill had
potentially taken confidential files until recently.

3

According to

1

AMEC, Integral has consistently delayed in producing the documents

2

contained on Mr. Averill's hard drive.

3

not until mid-August, when AMEC produced some 70,000 documents from

4

Mr. Averill's hard drives, that AMEC realized Mr. Averill may have

5

taken confidential documents.

6

AMEC contends that it was

The Court sides with AMEC.

Mot. at 3-4.
While it is true that Mr. Averill

7

was mentioned in AMEC's complaint and other filings, it is clear

8

that the focus was on Mr. Conti and Mr. Hillyard.

9

48-49, 52-73.

See Compl. ¶¶

Integral is also correct that AMEC argued as early

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

as October 18, 2013 that Mr. Averill "stole AMEC files and used

11

them at [his] new employer, Integral, to compete directly with

12

AMEC."

13

not realize it had a case against Mr. Averill until it actually

14

received the documents that were on his hard drives.

15

the Court finds that AMEC did not unduly delay in moving to add Mr.

16

Averill as a defendant.

17

ECF No. 55, at 1.

However, it is reasonable that AMEC did

Accordingly,

Integral also argues that permitting AMEC to amend its

18

complaint will prejudice both Integral and Mr. Averill.

Integral

19

argues that it will be prejudiced because addition of a new

20

defendant will require additional discovery that could have been

21

conducted concurrently with discovery of the original defendants.

22

Opp'n at 5.

23

fears will be unnecessarily duplicated, especially given that

24

Integral has apparently already produced the relevant documents

25

from Mr. Averill's hard drives.

26

out, the discovery that has been conducted to date will likely be

27

relevant to Mr. Averill.

28

add Mr. Averill as a defendant in this case, rather than requiring

It is not clear, however, what discovery Integral

On the contrary, as AMEC points

Reply at 5.

4

Indeed, permitting AMEC to

1

AMEC to file a separate action against him, would seem to serve the

2

interests of justice and prevent expensive and duplicative

3

discovery proceedings.
Finally, AMEC argues that Mr. Averill has not had an

4

AMEC to bring causes of action against him is therefore

7

prejudicial.

8

discovery deadline to January 23, 2015.

9

similarities between AMEC's claims against Mr. Averill and AMEC's

10

United States District Court

opportunity to conduct discovery in this case, and that allowing

6

For the Northern District of California

5

original claims, it seems likely that Mr. Averill will be able to

11

conduct any necessary discovery by that date.

12

impossible, the Court will, of course, consider a motion to extend

13

discovery again if good cause is shown.

The Court disagrees.

The Court recently extended the
ECF No. 163.

Given the

If that is

14
15
16

V.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff AMEC Environment and

17

Infrastructure's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is

18

GRANTED.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: December 3, 2014

23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

5