Borkowski et al v. Baltimore County, Maryland et al

Filing 73

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/10/2019. (td for sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
ANNA BORKOWSKI, et al.
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 18-2809

:
BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND,
et al.

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this civil
rights class action is the motion to enlarge time to file the
third

amended

Katelyn

Frank,

complaint
Marcella

filed

by

Fegler,

Plaintiffs

Annemarie

Anna

Hendler,

Borkowski,
and

Kaila

Noland (“named Plaintiffs”), on their own behalf and on behalf
of those similarly situated (“class Plaintiffs”).

(ECF No. 69).

The issues have been fully briefed, and the court now rules, no
hearing being deemed necessary.

Local Rule 105.6.

For the

following reasons, the motion for an extension of time will be
granted.
I.

Background
The factual and procedural background of this case is laid

out in the Memorandum Opinion dated September 30, 2019.
No. 67).
motions
prejudice

(ECF

On September 30, 2019, the court granted Defendants’
to

dismiss

and

the

permitted

second
Plaintiffs

amended
to

file

complaint
a

third

without
amended

complaint within 21 days – by October 21, 2019.

(ECF No. 69).

Plaintiffs filed the presently pending motion for an enlargement
of time on October 7, 2019.

(ECF No. 69).

Defendants Freeman

Hrabrowski, Paul Dillon, Mark Sparks, the University System of
Maryland’s
Baltimore
Police

Board

of

County

Regents,

(“UMBC”

Department

or

the

the

(collectively,

objected to Plaintiffs’ motion,

University

of

“University”),

and

the

“University

Maryland
the

UMBC

Defendants”)

(ECF No. 71), and Plaintiffs

replied, (ECF No. 72).
Plaintiffs’ motion requests an extension from October 21,
2019 to December 3, 2019 to file the third amended complaint.
(ECF No. 69).
integration

Plaintiffs argue that “[a]mendment requires the

of

significant

new

information

pleading issues[.]”

(Id., at 1 ¶ 2).

complex

the

nature

obligations.

of

case

and

(Id., at 2 ¶¶ 5–6).

to

address

the

Plaintiffs highlight the
counsel’s

other

upcoming

Finally, Plaintiffs emphasize

that they “have never objected to an extension request in this
case, including the two made by counsel for UMBC.”

(Id., at 3

¶ 8).
The

University

Defendants

oppose

Plaintiffs’

motion

and

emphasize that “this case has been pending for over a year, and
Plaintiffs

have

already

submitted

[c]omplaint without objection[.]”

three

versions

of

(ECF No. 71, at 3 ¶ 2).

their
They

note that Plaintiffs’ extension request amounts to “three times
2

the

period

initially

granted.

.

.

modest’ complaint[.]”

“unwarranted

file

(Id., at 1).

extension

to

of

time

is

a

more

‘focused,

They argue the six-week
and

especially the individual defendants.

prejudicial”

(Id., at 1–2).

to

them,

They are

concerned by Plaintiffs’ statement that they need to integrate
new information, arguing “[t]he implication is that Plaintiffs
are looking to add to the complaint and presumably maintain
claims

against

all

previously

named

defendants,

rather

than

streamline it and drop meritless claims against several of the
defendants[.]”
counsel’s

(Id. at 3 ¶ 3).

upcoming

They also note that Plaintiffs’

obligations

end

in

mid-October

and

argue

“Plaintiffs have failed to explain why they need until December
3, 2019 to produce a modest, focused complaint, especially in
light of the fact that this case has been pending for over a
year, the factual issues and allegations are not new, Plaintiffs
have been advised of the deficiencies in their allegations for
months, and several of the claims are unsalvageable.”

(Id. at 4

¶ 4).
Plaintiffs’ reply draws a distinction between the resources
of the Attorney General’s Office and the resources of their
small law firm and highlights the University Defendants’ earlier
requests for extensions.
while

their

upcoming

(ECF No. 72, at 2).
obligations

3

end

in

They note that
mid-October,

the

subsequent time is “still filled with a typical volume and the
Thanksgiving holidays.”
II.

(Id.).

Analysis
The court may grant a party’s motion for an extension of

time “for good cause[.]”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1).

“Good cause”

“means that scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite a party’s
diligent

efforts.”

Potomac

Elec.

Power

Co.

v.

Elec.

Motor

Supply, Inc., 190 F.R.D. 372, 375 (D.Md. 1999) (citation and
quotation marks omitted).
The University Defendants agree that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s
scheduling
(ECF

No.

conflicts
71,

University

at

support

1;

Defendants

reasonable.

id.,

a

disagree

extension

3

at

reasonable

Plaintiffs

¶ 4).

about

what

amount

time.

and
time

the
is

Plaintiffs’ point to the case’s complexity and the

need to integrate “significant new information[.]”
at 1).

of

of

(ECF No. 69,

These reasons trouble the University Defendants, who

argue several of Plaintiffs’ “claims cannot be salvaged,” and
the

remaining

streamlined.

claims

must

be

more

(ECF No. 71, at 3 ¶ 3).

focused,

modest,

and

The University Defendants

miss the mark by arguing that Plaintiffs should require less
time to focus and streamline the complaint.

Writing clearly and

concisely often requires more, not less, time.

Plaintiffs are

cautioned, however, to heed the decisions and the tone of the
court’s memorandum opinion and order.
4

The University Defendants

also argue that the extension is “unwarranted and prejudicial to
[them],

especially

the

individual

defendants,

who

have

been

unfairly subjected to baseless allegations for over a year.”
(ECF

No.

71,

at

1–2).

On

balance,

the

prejudice

to

the

University Defendants does not overcome Plaintiffs’ request.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to enlarge time to
file the third amended complaint filed by Plaintiffs will be
granted.

A separate order will follow.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

5