Murphy et al v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 16 Motion of defendants for leave to amend complaint. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 11/30/12. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
DONALD MURPHY, et al.

*

Plaintiffs
vs.

*
*

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-12-1533

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD, et al. *
Defendants
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Court has before it the motion, although filed by
Plaintiffs, entitled Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint to Add a Defendant [Document 16] and the materials
submitted relating thereto.

The Court has discussed the matter

with counsel and finds no need for the filing of further papers
or for a formal hearing.
Hamilton Tyler, Esquire, counsel for the presently named
Defendants, has stated that he will be counsel for the putative
additional defendant if the amendment were permitted.
states in the opposition to the instant motion:
Plaintiffs contend that “adding Sgt. Wells
as a party is essential to proving the
fabrication of the tip and Detective
Cornwell’s connection to knowing of its
falsity.” Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave at p.
5. Such is simply not the case. Nothing
prevents Plaintiffs from noting Sgt. Wells’
deposition and questioning him about the
email. If after Sgt. Wells’ deposition
Plaintiffs believe that they have a good

Mr. Tyler

faith basis to add Sgt. Wells as a
Defendant, they may point out the facts that
support their good faith basis and seek to
add him as a Defendant at that time.

Opp'n [Document 18-1] at 3.
The Court finds this position perfectly reasonable so long
as Mr. Tyler obtains an agreement from Sgt. Wells that, in the
event he were added as a defendant, he will be deemed to have
been represented by Mr. Tyler nunc pro tunc to the date of this
Order.

This agreement would eliminate any possible need to

duplicate any discovery that would be conducted prior to the
time that Sgt. Wells was added as a defendant.
For the foregoing reasons:
1.

The motion entitled Defendants’ Motion for Leave
to Amend Complaint to Add a Defendant filed by
Plaintiffs is DENIED.

2.

If the putative additional defendant agrees as
stated herein, Hamilton Tyler, Esquire, shall
file a letter confirming that agreement.

3.

In the absence of confirmation of such an
agreement by January 3, 2013, Plaintiffs may seek
reconsideration of the denial of the subject
motion.

SO ORDERED, on Friday, November 30, 2012.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge
2