Enlow v. Covidien Inc.

Filing 35

MINUTE ORDER granting 32 Defendants Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 3/31/2014.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01198-WJM-MJW
B. ENLOW,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
COVIDIEN LP (formerly Tyco Healthcare Group LP), a Delaware Limited Partnership,
Defendant(s).
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (docket no. 32) is GRANTED for the
following reasons. The First Amended Answer (docket no. 32-2) is accepted for
filing as of the date of this minute order.
The subject motion (docket no. 32) is made after the deadline for amendment
of pleadings, and thus this court has applied the following analysis in deciding
whether to allow the amendments:
Where, as here, a motion to amend the pleadings . . . is filed after the
scheduling order deadline, a “two-step analysis” is required. Once a
scheduling order’s deadline for amendment has passed, a movant
must first demonstrate to the court that it has “good cause” for seeking
modification of the scheduling deadline under Rule 16(b). If the movant
satisfies Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard, it must then pass the
requirements for amendment under Rule 15(a) . . . .
Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard is much different than the more
lenient standard contained in Rule 15(a). Rule 16(b) does not focus on
the bad faith of the movant, or the prejudice to the opposing party.
Rather, it focuses on the diligence of the party seeking leave to modify
the scheduling order to permit the proposed amendment. Properly
construed, “good cause” means that the scheduling deadlines cannot
be met despite a party’s diligent efforts. In other words, this court may
“modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if [the deadline]
cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.”
Carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no

2
reason for a grant of relief.
Pumpco, Inc. v. Schenker Int’l, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 667, 668 (D. Colo. 2001) (quotations
and citations omitted). This court finds that the defendant has satisfied this first step
in the analysis and has established good cause to extend the deadline within which
it may seek leave to amend the answer.
The second step is consideration of whether the defendant has satisfied the
standard for amendment of pleadings required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a):
Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given when
justice so requires.” Refusing leave to amend is generally only justified
upon a showing of undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party,
bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, or futility of amendment.
Id. at 669 (citation omitted). Based upon this standard, and substantially for the
reasons stated in the subject motion to amend (docket no. 32), this court finds that
the proposed amendments should be permitted. The court notes that no final trial
preparation conference and no trial date has been set in this matter, and the final
pretrial conference is not set until June 10, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. In the event the
parties believe that additional discovery is warranted in light of these amendments,
they may move to reopen discovery for a reasonable period and to alter any other
deadlines. Id. Thus, any prejudice that might arise from these amendments is
capable of being cured. Id.
Date: March 31, 2014