Martin v. Insight Communications Company, LP et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying without prejudice 26 Motion to Amend/Correct Answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 9/29/2010. (kjm1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION KIMBERLY A. MARTIN, Plaintiff, vs. INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LP, et al., Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant Timothy Martin's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer (Doc. # 26). Defendant specifically requests that the Court's leave to amend his answer to bring a statute of limitation defense to the attention of the Court. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), the Court may allow a party to amend its pleading "when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Nevertheless, "[o]nce the scheduling order's deadline to amend the [pleadings] passes . . . `a plaintiff first must show good cause under Rule 16(b) . . . for failure earlier to seek leave to amend.'" Ruschel v. Nestle Holdings, Inc., 89 Fed. Appx. 518, 521 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). The Court then "must evaluate prejudice to the nonmoving party `before [it] will [even] consider whether amendment is proper under Rule 15(a).'" Id. (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182). In this case, the Preliminary Pretrial Order stated that "[m]otions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings, if any, must be filed on or before SEPTEMBER 15, 2010." (Doc. # 15 at 2.) Defendant filed his Motion for Leave to Amend Answer on September 28, Civil Action 2:10-cv-00537 Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge E. A. Preston Deavers

2010. Defendant's Motion does not indicate whether good cause exists for his failure to seek leave to amend the answer before the scheduling deadline passed. Accordingly, Defendant Timothy Martin's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer (Doc. # 26) is DENIED without prejudice. If Defendant still wishes to amend his Answer, he must file a motion to modify the case schedule and for leave to file an amended answer, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and 15(a)(2), demonstrating that good cause exists for granting his motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED. September 29, 2010 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers United States Magistrate Judge

2