ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

On November 8, 2016, defendants filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer to plaintiff's fifth amended complaint. Mot., ECF No. 59. Plaintiff filed no opposition,1 as defendants noted in a reply on December 9, 2016. Reply, ECF No. 62. Specifically, defendants seek leave to amend to add two affirmative defenses based on: (1) California Penal Code section 196, which states that homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers when necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance; and (2) California Penal Code section 835a, which provides that officers may use reasonable force to overcome resistance and need not retreat.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that "a party may amend its pleading . . . [with] the court's leave" and "[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires." The court should apply this policy "with extreme liberality." Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)). Parties "ought to be afforded an opportunity to test [their] claim[s] on the merits," absent "any apparent or declared reason" such as "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

In this case, there is no indication plaintiff would be prejudiced by allowing defendants leave to amend their answer. The discovery deadline is May 15, 2017, so plaintiff still has time to conduct additional discovery, if needed. Additionally, the factual material needed to litigate these defenses appears to be co-extensive with defenses already pled in the answer. See Answer, ECF No. 53. Defendant already pleads the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, id. ¶ 28, and California courts find the reasonableness prong of the qualified immunity inquiry overlaps with the reasonableness analysis of the justifiable homicide inquiry under Penal Code section 196. See Martinez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.App.4th 334, 349 (1996). Additionally, the same reasonableness standard governing the qualified immunity inquiry is also applicable to Penal Code section 835a. See Yount v. City of Sacramento, 43 Cal.4th 885, 898 (2008); Hernandez v. City of Pomona, 46 Cal.4th 501, 518-19 (2009).

Additionally, there is no indication of unjust delay in this case; even if there were, delay alone on the part of defendants would not justify the denial of defendants' motion. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). Importantly, there is no evidence defendants acted in bad faith, and it does not appear amendment would be futile.

Accordingly, defendants' motion for leave to amend their answer is GRANTED.

This order resolves ECF No. 59.

IT IS SO ORDERED.