WELCH v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY

Filing 28

Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/28/2011. Discussion held regarding discovery, settlement, and related matters. Counsel shall file a proposed Case Management Plan by May 12, 2011. Counsel shall confer to determine which of the cases assigned to this Magistrate Judge, if any, that was formerly part of the Welch purported class action might be appropriate for an early settlement conference. The proposed CMP for that case shall reflect this fact and the proposed timing of such a conference. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend 18 is denied. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to amend merely to correct some numbering errors, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion solely for this purpose (see Entry for additional information). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker.(SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

CASSANDRA WELCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
ELI LILLY& COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01705-LJM-TAB

ORDER ON APRIL 28, 2011, TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE
Plaintiff appeared in person and by counsel and Defendant appeared by counsel April 28,
2011, for a telephonic status conference. Discussion held regarding discovery, settlement, and
related matters. Counsel shall file a proposed Case Management Plan by May 12, 2011. Counsel
shall confer to determine which of the cases assigned to this Magistrate Judge, if any, that was
formerly part of the Welch purported class action might be appropriate for an early settlement
conference. The proposed CMP for that case shall reflect this fact and the proposed timing of
such a conference.
The Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend [Docket No. 18] is denied. While the Court is
well aware that leave to amend should be freely granted, this does not equate to carte blanche
amendments, and this is essentially what the Plaintiff is seeking. The deadline for amendments
has long since passed, and as Defendant points out the Court has, in part, denied prior
amendment attempts for being untimely. [Docket No. 21 at 2.] This does not mean that no
amendments will ever be permitted in this case or its companion cases, but the amendment

sought here is primarily to add a claim regarding an allegedly inappropriately negative and
retaliatory reference. This claim arose one to two years after Plaintiff's termination in early
2005. Plaintiff already has been deposed. Allowing the untimely amendment under these
circumstances would be unfair and prejudicial to the Defendant. At the status conference
Plaintiff offered no good cause for the delay in seeking this amendment. To the extent Plaintiff
seeks to amend merely to correct some numbering errors, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion
solely for this purpose.
Dated: 05/03/2011
_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Copies to:
Ellen E. Boshkoff
BAKER & DANIELS
[e-mail]
Sharon Yvette Eubanks
SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER LLP
[e-mail]
Rozlyn M. Fulgoni-Britton
BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis
[e-mail]
Jamenda A. McCoy
BAKER & DANIELS LLP-Chicago
[e-mail]
Kristen L. Walsh
SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
[e-mail]