Woods v. Cornwell et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl on 4/1/19; granting 24 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. cc: Counsel(DJT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18-CV-00047-HBB
JEFFREY WOODS,
AS ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL WOODS

PLAINTIFF

VS.
WILLIAM D. CORNWELL, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint, DN 24. The
Defendants have responded in opposition at DN 26 and Plaintiff has replied at DN 27.
Nature of the Case
Plaintiff’s complaint, originally filed in state court, alleges that Plaintiff’s decedent
Michael Woods was operating a motor vehicle involved in a collision with another vehicle
operated by Defendant William D. Cornwell, III and owned by Defendant Advanced Drainage
Systems, Inc. (“ADS”). Plaintiff further alleges that ADS was Cornwell’s employer. Plaintiff
contends that Michael Woods died as a result of injuries sustained in the collision.

Plaintiff’s

causes of action in the complaint sounded in negligence and respondeat superior (DN 1-2).
After the deadline for amendment of pleadings passed, Plaintiff moved for leave to amend
the complaint to add claims related to ADS’s negligent training, supervision and retention of
Cornwell. The Court permitted the amendment (DN 20).

Plaintiff’s Motion
Plaintiff seeks to add a claim for punitive damages against ADS for gross negligence in
the training and retention of Cornwell. Plaintiff states that on February 13, 2019 he received
over 1,000 pages of discovery from ADS regarding the monthly and quarterly training of
Cornwell, as well as ADS’s training practices. Plaintiff states that “after reviewing the materials
and consulting with potential expert witnesses, the cumulative effect of these records, Defendant
Cornwell’s driving history, and the deposition testimony of ADS employee Ed Wilson, results
in what Plaintiff believes to be grossly negligent conduct warranting a punitive damages award
against Defendant ADS” (DN 24, p. 1). As to the delay in seeking to amend the complaint well
after the deadline for doing so, Plaintiff contends that the February-produced documents should
have been included in Defendants’ original response to discovery requests which Plaintiff
propounded at the time he filed his complaint.
The Defendants’ Response
Defendants oppose the Plaintiff’s motions on two grounds. One argument is that the
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for a second extension of the deadline for
amending pleadings. Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to explain how the most recent
batch of documents produced on February 13, 2019 provided information giving rise to a
previously unknown basis upon which to seek punitive damages.
Defendants also argue that they will be prejudiced because relatively little time remains
for discovery.

Up to this point, they contend that Plaintiff’s damages were relatively

straightforward and subject to a liquidation calculation. The injection of a claim for punitive
damages, however, will necessitate additional discovery.

Plaintiff’s Reply
Plaintiff replies that the delay in seeking modification was due to the time necessary to
review and seek consultation before determining that a punitive damages claim might be
supported. As to Defendants’ concern about the time remaining for discovery, Plaintiff notes
that the Defendants have to date taken no depositions. Plaintiff further questions what discovery
would be necessary regarding the defense of a punitive damages claim other than discovery from
Plaintiff’s experts.
Discussion
The law is well settled, “[o]nce the scheduling order's deadline passes, a plaintiff first
must show good cause under Rule 16(b) for failure earlier to seek leave to amend before a court
will consider whether amendment is proper under Rule 15(a).” Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d
888, 909 (6th Cir.2003) (citing Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc. 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (1998)). The
Sixth Circuit has indicated "[t]he primary measure of Rule 16's 'good cause' standard is the
moving party's diligence in attempting to meet the case management order's requirements."
Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotations
omitted); see also, Leary at 906 (A court "may modify a scheduling order for good cause only
if a deadline cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the
extension."). "Another relevant consideration is possible prejudice to the party opposing the
modification." Inge, 281 F.3d at 625 (citation omitted). The Court must first find that the
moving party proceeded diligently before considering whether the nonmoving party is
prejudiced, and only then to ascertain if there are any additional reasons to deny the motion.
Smith v. Holston Med. Grp., P.C., 595 F. App'x 474, 479 (6th Cir. 2014). Thus, the movant
who fails to show "good cause" will not be accorded relief under Rule 16(b)(4) merely because

the opposing party will not suffer substantial prejudice as a result of the modification of the
scheduling order.

Interstate Packaging Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., 291 F.R.D. 139,

145(M.D. Tenn. 2013) (citing Leary at 906, 909; Korn v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 382 F.
App'x 443,449 (6th Cir. 2010)).
Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he lacked the documents upon which he relies for
the assertion of a punitive damages claim prior to the expiration of the deadline for amending
pleadings. Plaintiff had submitted document requests to the Defendant which should have
elicited production of the documents at the outset of the case.
As to Defendants’ claim of prejudice, they have not identified what discovery they must
undertake to meet Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim that they would not have undertaken in
the absence of the claim. Should Defendants desire an extension of the deadline for discovery,
they should file a motion articulating a reason and specifying what additional discovery
specifically related to the new claim is contemplated.
Wherefore, Plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint, DN 24, is
GRANTED and the amended complaint tendered at DN 24-1 is deemed filed of record.

April 1, 2019

Copies: Counsel