Derezic et al v. Ohio Department of Education et al

Filing 36

OPINION AND ORDER denying 32 Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 2/2/2015. (pes1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
AIMEE DEREZIC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Civil Action 2:14-cv-0051
Judge Smith
Magistrate Judge King

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which
plaintiffs, individuals whose children received Ohio EdChoice
Scholarships for kindergarten in Euclid, Ohio, allege that those
scholarships were unlawfully terminated during the 2013-2014 school
year.

Plaintiffs assert claims against the defendant state agency and

the state Superintendent of Public Instruction for denial of
procedural due process.
relief.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Leave to

Amend Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 32 (“Motion to
Amend”).
On June 6, 2014, upon defendant’s request, ECF 21, the Court
modified the pretrial schedule, extending the deadlines for, inter
alia, completing discovery to December 1, 2014, and filing motions for
summary judgment to December 31, 2014.

Order, ECF 22.

The parties

timely filed motions for summary judgment and substantive responses to
those motions on January 26, 2014.

ECF 30, 31, 34, 35.

1

On December 31, 2014, after they had filed their dispositive
motion, plaintiffs also filed their Motion to Amend.

In support of

their request, plaintiffs represented that, on the afternoon of
December 31, 2014, defendant served plaintiffs’ counsel “with 291
additional pages of supplemental responsive documents” to plaintiffs’
discovery requests, which had been served in late October and early
November 2014.

Id. at 1-2 (emphasis in original).

Plaintiffs

explained that their counsel “has not had an opportunity to review
most of the new material, [but] at first blush, many of the documents
appear to be pertinent emails from ODE [Ohio Department of Education]
officials that are approximately two years old, and appear to be
plainly relevant to the underlying case.”

Id.

Plaintiffs asked for

an extension until January 14, 2015, in which to amend their motion
for summary judgment.

Id. at 2.

Defendant opposes the Motion to Amend on four different grounds.
Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave
to Amend Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 33
(“Opposition”).
mere speculation.

First, defendant characterizes the motion as based on
Id. at 1-2.

Next, defendant contends that

plaintiffs have not established good cause for a further modification
of the pretrial schedule.

Id. at 2-3.

Defendant also argues that the

relief sought in the Motion to Amend is unnecessary because plaintiffs
had the opportunity to incorporate the allegedly relevant emails in
the summary judgment briefing when they responded to defendant’s
motion for summary judgment and when they filed their reply in support

2

of their dispositive motion.

Id. at 3.

Finally, defendant contends

that it will be prejudiced by the grant of the motion because the
relief sought by plaintiffs will delay the briefing schedule in
connection with the dispositive motions and give plaintiffs a tactical
advantage.

Id.

The Motion to Amend is not well-taken.

Nowhere in their motion

do plaintiffs identify any specific document or documents produced by
defendant on December 31, 2014 that would impact the Court’s
consideration of the motions for summary judgment.

Although it is

understandable that plaintiffs’ counsel had limited time to review the
nearly 300 documents when it moved for leave to amend, it is
significant that plaintiffs have not filed a reply memorandum in
support of their motion, nor have they otherwise addressed defendant’s
objections to the motion. Moreover, plaintiffs had the opportunity to
rely on these recently produced documents when they responded to
defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
26, 2015).

See ECF 35 (filed on January

In short, nothing in the present record persuades this

Court that the present motions for summary judgment do not adequately
address the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.

Accordingly, the Court

declines to delay resolution of the present motions for summary
judgment based on plaintiffs’ speculation that some unidentified
documents “appear to be plainly relevant to the underlying case.”
In re NLO, Inc., 5 F.3d 154, 157 (6th Cir. 1993) (stating that
district courts must exercise their “substantial inherent power to
manager their dockets” “in a manner that is in harmony with the

3

Cf.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); Black v. Columbus Pub. Schs., No.
2:96-cv-326, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57768, at *15-16 (S.D. Ohio Aug.
17, 2006) (denying motion for leave to file instanter supplemental
motion for summary judgment where, inter alia, cited portions of
supplemental deposition were irrelevant to the issue before the Court
on summary judgment); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (permitting
modification of a scheduling order “only for good cause and with the
judge’s consent”).
WHEREUPON, Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Summary Judgment, ECF 32, is DENIED.

February 2, 2015

s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

4