COOK v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Filing 55

ORDER granting 50 Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer to First Amended Complaint. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

JENNIE M. COOK,
Plaintiff,
v.
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:16-cv-00207-JDL

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to amend its answer to assert
failure to mitigate as an affirmative defense. (Motion, ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff does not
object to the motion provided the Court amends the scheduling order to extend the
discovery period, provide more time for the parties to designate expert witnesses, and
extend the time for Plaintiff to amend her complaint. (Response, ECF No. 52.) Defendant
opposes any modification of the scheduling order deadlines.
Following a review of the record, and after consideration of the parties’ arguments,
the Court grants the motion to amend without a further modification of the scheduling order
deadlines.
Discussion
Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a litigant to amend a
pleading “once as a matter of course,” subject to certain time constraints. In the case of an
answer, freedom to amend without leave of court is permitted within 21 days of the date

on which the answer was filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). Thereafter, leave of court is
required, though leave should be granted “freely . . . when justice so requires.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The standard is
elevated, however, when the motion seeking leave to amend is filed after the deadline for
amendment of the pleadings found in the court’s scheduling order. A motion to amend that
is filed beyond the scheduling order deadline requires an amendment of the scheduling
order. To obtain an amendment of the scheduling order, a party must demonstrate “good
cause.” Johnson v. Spencer Press of Maine, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 27, 30 (D. Me. 2002); El–
Hajj v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 156 F. Supp. 2d 27, 34 (D. Me. 2001); Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4). A court’s decision on good cause “focuses on the diligence (or lack thereof) of
the moving party more than it does on any prejudice to the party-opponent.” Steir v. Girl
Scouts of the USA, 383 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir. 2004). “Particularly disfavored are motions to
amend whose timing prejudices the opposing party by ‘requiring a re-opening of discovery
with additional costs, a significant postponement of the trial, and a likely major alteration
in trial tactics and strategy.’” Id. (quoting Acosta–Mestre v. Hilton Int'l of P.R., Inc., 156
F.3d 49, 52 (1st Cir. 1998)). It falls to the court’s discretion whether to grant a late motion
to amend, and that discretion should be exercised on the basis of the particular facts and
circumstances of the case. Id.
Here, the Court is satisfied that the defense was generated by information learned
through discovery and that Defendant was not dilatory in requesting the amendment. The
Court, therefore, concludes that Defendant has demonstrated good cause for the
amendment, and will permit Defendant to file an amended answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.
2

The Court, however, can discern no reason to extend discovery generally, reopen
expert discovery, or authorize Plaintiff to amend her complaint without proposing a
particular amendment. First, given that the additional defense (i.e., failure to mitigate) is
based on Plaintiff’s conduct, the facts that allegedly support the defense should not be
unknown to Plaintiff. In addition, as set forth in the order following the Court’s telephonic
conference with the parties in September 2017, if a party believes that additional discovery
is necessary, the party can request a further telephonic conference to discuss the discovery
the party believes is necessary. As discovery proceeds, therefore, Plaintiff can request a
conference to address any specific discovery requests Plaintiff believes might be necessary.
Finally, if Plaintiff determines that an amendment to her complaint is warranted, Plaintiff
can file an appropriate motion for the Court’s consideration.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for leave to
amend its answer. Defendant shall file the amended answer on or before February 7, 2018.
The current scheduling order deadlines shall remain in effect.
NOTICE
Any objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 30th day of January, 2018.

3