789 F. Supp. 2d 417
W.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Plaintiff William M. George sues City of Buffalo alleging age discrimination in promotion to Laborer II (non-competitive position) and seeks relief under ADEA and New York Executive Law § 296.
- Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint to add a First Amendment political hiring claim and a proposed Third Claim; he also seeks to extend discovery time and to disqualify defense counsel.
- Defendant opposes amendments as untimely, prejudicial, and futile, and argues no basis for disqualification or additional deposition time.
- Magistrate Judge Foschio granted amendment to add the First Amendment claim, denied disqualification without prejudice, and granted additional deposition time and scheduling-order modification, all subject to district court review.
- District Court affirmed Foschio’s Decision and Order, finding no clear error or law-to-the contrary in allowing amendments and continuances while denying disqualification at this stage.
- The case proceeded with defendant’s counsel remaining to represent the City, and the amended scheduling order to be drafted for further discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may amend after deadline to add a First Amendment claim | George had new evidence post-deadline showing political considerations | Untimely and prejudicial to City | GRANTED as to amendment to add claim |
| Whether disqualification of defense counsel is warranted | Conflict due to dual representation and witness concerns | No substantial conflict; no current adverse interests | DENIED without prejudice to renewal |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to additional deposition time for Masi | Need more time to cover issues and newly produced documents | Time limits should control; discovery progress | GRANTED for additional 3.5 hours (total seven hours) to complete deposition |
| Whether scheduling order should be amended to allow extended discovery | Equitable to extend deadlines given new claims | Delays prejudicial and should be constrained | GRANTED; Second Amended Scheduling Order to be proposed within 10 days |
| Whether proposed Third Claim is futile under Iqbal and Monell standards | Claims plausible with evidence of political influence | Lacks factual basis and would be speculative | GRANTED in part; claim not futile and not prejudicial at this stage; review on a later record |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62 (1990) (government employment decisions tied to political affiliation implicate First Amendment rights)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (pleading must state plausible claims showing relief is actionable)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (claims must be plausible, not merely possible; plausible pleading standard)
- Parker v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000) (good cause for late amendments in scheduling orders when due diligence shown)
- In re Cendant Corp. Securities Litigation, 124 F. Supp. 2d 235 (D.N.J. 2000) (conflict-of-interest rules govern disqualification analysis)