Strickland v. Ujiri
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-00981
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strickland v. Ujiri, Judge Rogers granted defendants leave to add counterclaims and denied plaintiffs’ motion to seal as moot.
The order affects Masai Ujiri and the other defendants, who may file the amended joint answer and counterclaim, and Alan Strickland, who must respond. It also requires the plaintiffs to file unredacted documents publicly.
What happened
Alan Strickland and Kelly Strickland sued Masai Ujiri and other defendants. After receiving video footage in discovery, Ujiri and the other defendants asked to add claims against Alan Strickland.
The court found good cause and allowed defendants to file an amended joint answer and counterclaim. The proposed claims against Alan Strickland include excessive force under federal civil-rights law, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court did not decide whether those claims are valid.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to seal as moot and directed them to file unredacted documents publicly within seven days. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered defendants to file the amended pleading within three court days and plaintiffs to respond within 21 calendar days.
The detailed version
- Strickland v. Ujiri · No. 4:20-cv-00981
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 15, 2020
Background
Defendants Masai Ujiri and Toronto Raptors/Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment asked for permission to file an amended joint answer and counterclaim. The proposed amendment would add, on Ujiri’s behalf against Alan Strickland, claims for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants said the amendment was based on discovery they had recently obtained, including video footage produced by plaintiffs on July 21, 2020, including footage from Alan Strickland’s body camera.
Because the deadline in the scheduling order for amending pleadings had passed, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which requires good cause, along with Rule 15(a), which addresses amendments to pleadings. The court found that defendants acted with reasonable diligence after receiving the video. It also found no bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or facial futility. The court noted that discovery was still in its early stages, deadlines were several months away, and no party apparently had taken depositions.
Rulings
The court granted defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended joint answer and counterclaim. It did not decide the merits of the proposed counterclaim. Defendants were ordered to file the proposed amended pleading within three court days, and plaintiffs were ordered to respond within 21 calendar days after that filing.
The court denied as moot plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal. The motion concerned documents designated confidential by the National Basketball Association under the protective order. The National Basketball Association withdrew that designation for Exhibit 4, making the request as to that exhibit moot. The court also stated that the proposed supplemental briefing in Exhibit 5 did not change its analysis and directed plaintiffs to file unredacted versions of the documents on the public docket within seven days.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered that the two motions, docket numbers 35 and 38, were terminated.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.