Taylor v. McDermott, 4:20-cv-11272

Peter and Michael Taylor were arrested May 20, 2020 in connection with the alleged assistance of Carlos Ghosn’s escape from Japan; they sought relief in U.S. proceedings challenging extradition.
The Taylors moved to quash the arrest warrants (June 8, 2020) and filed a habeas petition (July 6, 2020), arguing the alleged facts did not amount to a crime under Japanese Penal Code Article 103 rather than contesting the underlying facts.
An extradition hearing occurred before the Magistrate Judge on August 28, 2020; the Taylors continued to press legal—not factual—challenges, and filed a Second Habeas Petition on October 29, 2020.
On December 17, 2020 the Japanese government told the U.S. that a hotel room key was not required to operate the elevator (an assertion relevant to whether Peter Taylor provided a key card); on December 31, 2020 Japan reversed that statement.
The Taylors sought remand and reconsideration based on the December 17 statement; the Magistrate Judge denied reconsideration, and the district court likewise denied relief.
On January 24, 2021 the Taylors moved to amend their habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2242 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to challenge the factual sufficiency supporting probable cause and the Magistrate Judge’s denial; the district court denied the motion as untimely and unjustified by the alleged new evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leave to amend the habeas petition under Rule 15 to challenge factual sufficiency of probable cause and the Magistrate Judge’s denial should be granted	Taylors: amendment is proper under §2242 and Rule 15 to allow review of factual allegations supporting probable cause and reconsideration denial	Respondents: amendment is untimely; Taylors had prior opportunities to contest facts and provided no adequate explanation for delay	Denied. Although Rule 15 is the correct vehicle, leave to amend denied due to untimeliness and undue delay under Foman factors
Whether Japan’s December 17, 2020 statement (that a key card was not required) made amendment timely	Taylors: the December 17 statement was newly discovered evidence that justified amendment and remand	Respondents: the time to challenge the facts was at the extradition hearing; the December statement does not excuse an eight-month delay; Japan later withdrew the assertion	Denied. The court held the late disclosure did not excuse delay; the motion to amend was untimely

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (factors for denying leave to amend: undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to cure, undue prejudice, futility)
Hatch v. Dep’t for Children, Youth & Their Families, 274 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2001) (applying Foman factors in First Circuit contexts)