Filed: Aug. 28, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 28, 2013
Summary: ORDER PHILIP R. LAMMENS, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on several pending motions. (Docs. 22, 25, 30 & 32). Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Based upon Defendant's response (Doc. 27), Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 22) is DENIED as moot. 2. Defendant seeks leave to amend its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to reorganize the individual answer paragraphs and to add affirmative defenses which should have been alleged by Defendant's
Summary: ORDER PHILIP R. LAMMENS, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on several pending motions. (Docs. 22, 25, 30 & 32). Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Based upon Defendant's response (Doc. 27), Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 22) is DENIED as moot. 2. Defendant seeks leave to amend its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to reorganize the individual answer paragraphs and to add affirmative defenses which should have been alleged by Defendant's ..
More
ORDER
PHILIP R. LAMMENS, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on several pending motions. (Docs. 22, 25, 30 & 32). Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Based upon Defendant's response (Doc. 27), Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 22) is DENIED as moot.
2. Defendant seeks leave to amend its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to reorganize the individual answer paragraphs and to add affirmative defenses which should have been alleged by Defendant's former counsel in the initial pleading. There is some question as to whether the motion is governed only by Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or whether Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also applies.2 The Court, however, need not resolve this dispute because under either standard the motion is due to be granted.
While Plaintiff objects to the amendment, he does not identify any specific prejudice other than claiming it will cause "an undue delay of this action." Doc. 29 at 2. It seems unlikely that Defendant's proposed amendment will inject new issues into the case. Moreover, the Court is inclined to grant Defendant's request to extend discovery through October 18, 2013. Thus, Plaintiff will have sufficient opportunity to conduct any necessary ddiscovery related to these new affirmative defenses. Moreover, the extension of the discovery deadline will not affect the December 3, 2013 dispositive motion deadline nor trial, which is scheduled for the term commencing March 3, 2014.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 25) is GRANTED. Within five (5) daays of this Order, Defendant shall serve and file as a separate docket entry its Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses. In addition, Defendant's Expedited Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline (Doc. 30) is GRANTED and the discovery deadline is extended until October 18, 2013. The parties shall not use the granting of this Motion as a basis for an extension of other case deadlines. Defendant's request for leave to file a reply (Doc. 32) is DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED.
