RYA W. ZOBEL, Senior District Judge.
In this action against the servicer of his law school student loans, defendant Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSL"), plaintiff Stefan Cencarik alleges violations of the Massachusetts consumer protection laws and the federal Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). The complaint also includes claims for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.
Now pending before the court are plaintiff's motions to (i) Withdraw Claim and Request to Remand (Docket # 45); (ii) Amend Complaint (Docket # 17); and (iii) Compel Discovery and for Sanctions (Docket # 18); as well as (iv) Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Docket # 21).
Plaintiff's motion to withdraw his TILA claim and to remand the action to state court is in two parts. The voluntary dismissal of the TILA claim is granted without prejudice to any motion by defendant for sanctions, attorney's fees, and/or cost related to that claim.
First, diversity jurisdiction is likely present because the parties are citizens of different states,
Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint seeks to add NSL's parent company as a defendant and to allege new claims of equitable recission, civil conspiracy, conversion, and promissory estoppel. In support of the motion, plaintiff states only that amendment is "necessary to conform to evidence recently received in discovery" and asserts that allowing the new complaint "will not delay this matter." Docket # 17 at 2.
Though "[a] court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), "[t]his rule does not mean that `a trial court must mindlessly grant every request for leave to amend. . . .'"
Here, plaintiff's request founders for several reasons including that it is very late in the life of this proceeding, that the amendment is largely futile, and that plaintiff has not complied with the relevant local rules. For purposes of this Memorandum of Decision, however, it is sufficient to note only that "[w]hen considerable time has elapsed between the filing of the complaint and the motion to amend, the movant has . . . the burden of showing some valid reason for his neglect and delay." In re Lombardo, 755 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff has not attempted to justify seeking amendment at this late date, wherefore the motion is denied.
Plaintiff's discovery motion, which asks the court to order defendant to produce certain documents and provide "full and complete" responses to certain interrogatories, is denied. To the extent the requested discovery is sought "to determine the identi[ty] and liability of additional parties," Docket # 18 at 2, such discovery is not "relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit."
Defendant has moved for a protective order regarding plaintiff's second set of discovery demands, which consist of four interrogatories, thirteen document requests, and 135 requests for admission. Plaintiff's first set of discovery demands contained 270 requests for admission, 61 requests for production, and interrogatories that, while numbered 1 through 20, defendant contends actually amounted to 28 or more interrogatories. Defendant states that it responded to each of the written requests in plaintiff's first set of discovery demands and produced over 1,100 pages of documents. A protective order is appropriate, defendant argues, because the new requests are solely intended to harass and annoy as evidenced by "[t]he sheer volume of the discovery, lack of merit to plaintiff's claims, and plaintiff's continued failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. . . ."
The Federal Rules grant the court "broad discretion . . . to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required."
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket # 17) is denied. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions (Docket # 18) is denied. Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Docket # 21) is allowed. Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Claim and Request to Remand (Docket # 45) is allowed as to the withdrawal of the TILA claim and denied as to the request to remand.
Any dispositive motions shall be filed by December 10, 2018; any opposition thereto shall be filed by January 10, 2019. The moving party may file a reply brief of no more than three pages by January 17, 2019. The court will decide the motion(s) on the papers unless a party requests oral argument.