Famuyide v. Chipotle Mexican Grill

Background

Famuyide alleges that Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC hired Lionell Bailey, who sexually harassed and sexually assaulted her at the Chipotle restaurant where she worked. Bailey later pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal sexual conduct in connection with his conduct toward Famuyide.

The court had set July 29, 2025, as the deadline for completing fact discovery and November 24, 2024, as the deadline for motions to amend the pleadings. The defendants filed two motions on August 12, 2025: one seeking permission to depose Bailey, who was incarcerated, and one seeking permission to amend their answer and defenses.

Motion to Depose Bailey

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B) requires court permission to depose a person confined in prison. Because the defendants sought permission after the fact-discovery deadline, they also had to show “good cause” under Rule 16(b)(4). Good cause primarily depends on the moving party’s diligence in trying to meet the scheduling order.

The defendants argued that they acted promptly after the dispute became ready for court review and suggested that Famuyide’s responses to communications contributed to the delay. Famuyide argued that she had clearly opposed the deposition by June 26, 2025, and that the defendants had long known Bailey was central to the case.

The court found that the defendants did not show diligence. They knew from the complaint about Bailey’s alleged conduct and, according to the opinion, did not claim that they learned about his guilty plea only after Famuyide’s May 29, 2025, deposition. The court also found the defendants’ explanations about when they decided to depose Bailey inconsistent. Even assuming the deposition revealed new information, the defendants waited nearly a month before telling Famuyide’s counsel of their intent and more than six weeks after learning of her opposition before filing the motion.

The court held that the defendants had not shown that they could not reasonably have sought permission before the July 29 deadline. It therefore denied the Motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Lionell Bailey for lack of good cause.

Motion to Amend the Answer

Because the motion to amend was filed after the scheduling deadline, the defendants had to satisfy both the general amendment standard under Rule 15 and Rule 16’s good-cause requirement for changing the schedule. They sought to modify their Tenth Affirmative Defense and withdraw their Sixteenth Affirmative Defense. An affirmative defense is a defense that, if established, could defeat or limit a claim even if the plaintiff proves the basic allegations.

Tenth Affirmative Defense

The existing Tenth Affirmative Defense stated that no act or omission by the defendants caused Famuyide’s injuries. The proposed revision would add that Famuyide was not performing work duties, was not acting under a supervisor’s authority, and acted of her own free will when she followed Bailey to the bathroom. It would characterize her actions as a superseding intervening cause of the assault and battery claims.

The defendants argued that Famuyide’s deposition supplied new information because she testified that Bailey did not use words of violence or physically threaten her when asking her to follow him. Famuyide responded that the testimony was consistent with the complaint and with information in a police report previously provided to the defendants.

The court agreed with Famuyide. It concluded that the complaint’s description of Bailey’s repeated sexual demands, increasingly aggressive conduct, and coercion was consistent with her deposition testimony. The court also found that the defendants’ proposed language went beyond the information they identified as new. The defendants did not explain the approximately two-month delay between Famuyide’s deposition and their request for permission to amend. The court therefore concluded that the defendants had not shown good cause and denied the motion to amend as to the Tenth Affirmative Defense.

Sixteenth Affirmative Defense

The defendants sought to withdraw their Sixteenth Affirmative Defense, which asserted that they had exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct inappropriate conduct and that Famuyide unreasonably failed to use available remedial measures. The defendants said this defense did not apply because Bailey was not Famuyide’s supervisor. Famuyide did not oppose withdrawal.

The court found good cause for the withdrawal and determined that it would not prejudice Famuyide. It therefore granted the motion to amend as to the withdrawal of the Sixteenth Affirmative Defense. The court stated that it would address separate arguments about the effect of that withdrawal on the scope of discovery in a separate order.

Disposition

The court’s final order denied the defendants’ Motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Lionell Bailey. It granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend Answer and Affirmative and Other Defenses: the motion was granted as to withdrawal of the Sixteenth Affirmative Defense and otherwise denied.