MOORE v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 150

ORDER denying 126 Motion to Stay; denying 126 Motion to Amend Complaint; denying 126 Motion for Documents. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

WALTER WILLIAM MOORE,
a/k/a Nikki Natasha Petrovickov,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)

1:16-cv-00398-NT

ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY/MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT/
MOTION FOR DOCUMENTS
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motions to stay this action, to amend
the complaint, and for the production of certain documents. (Motion, ECF No. 126.)
Following a review of the motions, and after consideration of the parties’ arguments, the
Court denies the motions.
Discussion
A. Motion to Stay
The District Court has discretion to grant a temporary stay. Good v. Altria Grp.,
Inc., 624 F. Supp. 2d 132, 134 (D. Me. 2009). “Generally, in evaluating whether to issue
a stay, a court will consider three factors: (1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party;
(2) hardship and inequity to the moving party without a stay; and, (3) judicial economy.”
Id.

Plaintiff requests a stay of this matter until six months after receipt of certain
documents. Plaintiff’s request for documents has been the subject of several motions the
Court has addressed. (Orders, ECF Nos. 121, 139, 141, 144, 149.) Plaintiff’s concerns
about the documents does not warrant a stay. The matter has been pending for more than
two years, and the Court previously stayed the matter at Plaintiff’s request. (Orders, ECF
Nos. 76, 82.) The matter should proceed to resolution. After considering the relevant
factors, including the interests of all parties, the Court finds no reasonable basis for the
requested stay.
B. Motion to Amend Complaint
Plaintiff seeks to amend and expand the claim, evidently to include a claim based
on the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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. After the defendant files an answer to a complaint, freedom to
amend the complaint 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–
2

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 is within a 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.
As mentioned above, this matter has been pending for more than two years, the
deadline for amendment to the pleadings has passed, and discovery is closed. Several
parties have filed a motion for summary judgment. (Motion, ECF No. 133.) To permit the
amendment at this stage of the proceedings would be prejudicial to the defendants as it
would likely require further discovery and delay the resolution of the matter. The Court
concludes that an amendment at this stage of the proceedings is not appropriate.
C. Motion for Documents
As explained above, the Court has addressed several similar motions for documents
filed by Plaintiff. (Orders, ECF Nos. 121, 139, 141, 144, 149.) The Court believes the
prior orders have adequately addressed the issue, and that a further order of the Court is
not warranted.
3

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay, Motion
to Amend, and Motion for Documents. (ECF No. 126.)
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 9th day of November, 2018.

4