288 F.R.D. 103
M.D.N.C.2013Background
- This case began in state court and was removed to this court on October 6, 2011; Defendant moved to seal certain filings and to extend time to plead.
- Defendant’s Motion to Amend Answer and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Discovery Schedule were filed, with the court denying both except mediation extension.
- A scheduling order adopting deadlines for discovery, expert reports, and mediation was entered May–June 2012 after a joint report; mediation was set for November 2012.
- Defendant later sought an extension to answer; health issues of the Assistant Attorney General were cited to justify delays.
- Plaintiff later objected to late expert reports and, after communications about scheduling, filed a Motion to Amend Discovery Schedule seeking relief due to counsel’s personal circumstances.
- The court ordered mediation by a new deadline and directed the parties to show cause why the Complaint and related documents should remain under seal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant may amend his answer as an affirmative defense | Kaiser— Plaintiff opposes amendment absent consent or good cause | Defendant contends amendment is proper under Rule 15(a)(2) due to scheduling order permission to seek leave | Denied; no good cause or authority shown; amendment not warranted |
| Whether plaintiff should be allowed to amend the discovery schedule | Plaintiff seeks extension due to counsel's personal circumstances | Defendant opposes extension, citing lack of diligence and risk to trial timetable | Denied; no good cause or excusable neglect established |
| Whether the filings (Complaint, exhibits, Summons) should remain under seal | Parties relied on protective order and secrecy of filings | Sealing remains appropriate under protective order and related standards | Court will require show cause why sealing should continue |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (excusable neglect factors in extension requests)
- Marcum v. Zimmer, 163 F.R.D. 250 (S.D.W.Va.1995) (good cause and diligence standard for schedule modification)
- Thompson v. E.I. duPont Nemours & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 530 (4th Cir.1996) (excusable neglect and diligence considerations)
- Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir.2010) (extension requests before deadline normally granted absent bad faith or prejudice)
- Everett v. Prison Health Servs., 412 Fed.Appx. 604 (4th Cir.2011) (magistrate judge’s order review standards and timely motions)