Bach v. Drerup et al

Filing 23

DECISION AND ENTRY - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs Motion to File Amended Complaint and to Add Parties (Doc. 19 ) is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff is directed to file and serve a copy of the Proposed Amended Complaint (Doc. 19 -1) on Defenda nts as Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint on or before March 26, 2012. 3. Defendants' Motion to Modify Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order (Doc. 22 ) is GRANTED; and 4. Defendants' disclosure of primary experts is due no later tha n April 19, 2012. Plaintiff's disclosure of rebuttal experts is due by May 18, 2012. All other deadlines set forth in the Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order (Doc. 16 ) remain unchanged. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L Ovington on 3/16/2012. (kje1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
TERRY BACH, JR.,
Plaintiff,

:
Case No. 3:11cv00317

:

vs.

:

District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

SCOTT DRERUP, et al.,

:

Defendants.

:

DECISION AND ENTRY
This case is presently before the Court upon Plaintiff Terry Bach, Jr.’s Motion to
File Amended Complaint and to Add Parties (Doc. #19), Defendants’ Motion to Modify
Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order (Doc. #22), and the record as a whole.
Plaintiff “moves this Court to grant leave to file an Amended Complaint and name
an additional cause of action (Retaliation Claim), and for leave to add additional parties
when their identities are determined.” (Doc. #19 at 1). Defendants have not filed a
Response in Opposition.
Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts “should
freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Nonetheless, “[a] motion to
amend a complaint should be denied if the amendment is brought in bad faith, for dilatory
purposes, results in undue delay or prejudice to the opposing party, or would be futile.”

Crawford v. Roane, 53 F.3d 750, 753 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 187, 83 S. Ct. 227 (1962)).
In this case, there is no reason for this Court to believe that Plaintiff’s motion is
brought in bad faith, for dilatory purposes, would result in undue delay or prejudice to the
opposing party, or is futile, and Defendants will suffer no prejudice as a result of
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to File Amended
Complaint and to Add Parties (Doc. #19) is well taken.
Due in part to Plaintiff’s Motion to File Amended Complaint and to Add Parties
(Doc. #19), Defendants request “additional time to investigate the merit of these recent
allegations,” and “therefore, request the Court to modify the Preliminary Pretrial
Conference Order to extend Defendants’ disclosure of primary experts to April 19, 2012.”
(Doc. #22 at 2). Defendants state “[t]he requested modification will not affect any other
deadlines set forth in the Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order,” and that “[t]he present
request is not made for purposes of delay, but only to thoroughly evaluate Plaintiff’s
claims and make a determination of the need for expert testimony.” (Id.). Based on the
amendment of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants’ Motion to Modify Preliminary Pretrial
Conference Order (Doc. #22) is well taken.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to File Amended Complaint and to Add Parties (Doc.
#19) is GRANTED;

2.

Plaintiff is directed to file and serve a copy of the Proposed Amended
2

Complaint (Doc. #19-1) on Defendants as Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint on or before March 26, 2012.
3.

Defendants’ Motion to Modify Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order (Doc.
#22) is GRANTED; and,

4.

Defendants’ disclosure of primary experts is due no later than April 19,
2012. Plaintiff’s disclosure of rebuttal experts is due by May 18, 2012. All
other deadlines set forth in the Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order (Doc.
#16) remain unchanged.

March 16, 2012
s/ Sharon L. Ovington
Sharon L. Ovington
United States Magistrate Judge

3