Emerson v. Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc.

Background

Kimberly Emerson brought an employment-discrimination action against Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc. and Iron Mountain Incorporated. She moved for leave to file a first amended complaint. The proposed amendment would substitute Iron Mountain Information Management, LLC for Doe Defendant No. 1 and add factual allegations supporting a pattern of disability discrimination, among other changes.

The motion came after the deadline in the court’s scheduling order for amending pleadings. Emerson said that information learned through disclosures, discovery, and discussions with the defendants led her to seek the addition of IMIM. The opinion states that the defendants had identified several people involved in the alleged adverse-action decision and had provided differing information about which Iron Mountain entity employed them. Emerson also stated that an independent investigation showed IMIM was listed as the payor on her 2013 Internal Revenue Service Form W-2.

The parties had discussed stipulating to the proposed amendment but could not agree on one statement to include in the stipulation. Emerson filed the motion shortly afterward.

Legal standard

Because the scheduling-order deadline had passed, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which requires good cause to modify the schedule, as well as Rule 15(a), which governs amendment of pleadings. The court explained that diligence is the main consideration under Rule 16(b)(4). Under Rule 15(a), the relevant considerations include bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and whether the amendment would be futile, meaning unable to support a viable claim.

Court’s reasoning

The court found good cause under Rule 16(b)(4). It rejected the defendants’ argument that Emerson had waited too long because the defendants had remained open to stipulating to the amendment until shortly before the motion was filed. The court concluded that Emerson filed the motion with reasonable diligence after the parties nearly reached an agreement.

The court also found no bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility under Rule 15(a). It noted that IMIM appeared to be wholly owned by Iron Mountain Incorporated and appeared to be a second-level parent of Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc. The court stated that a joint-employment relationship might exist among the entities. It also found that the defendants’ claimed prejudice was based entirely on the alleged delay and that they had not otherwise explained how the amendment would prejudice them.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the motion for leave to file the first amended complaint. It ordered Emerson to file the proposed amended complaint within three court days of the order’s issuance and ordered the defendants to file their response within 10 calendar days afterward. The order terminated Docket Number 36.

Note on the opinion text

The text says Emerson filed the action on October 15, 2021, but the order is dated September 22, 2021. The opinion does not explain this apparent chronology inconsistency.