Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc.

Background

Defendants asked for permission to file an amended answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint after the deadline in the scheduling order. Plaintiffs opposed the request.

Defendants argued that the proposed amendments would correct earlier admissions, add supporting facts, and give notice of additional affirmative defenses. They also argued that the request was made only about one month after the deadline and that Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced. Plaintiffs argued that Defendants were not diligent because they had known the underlying facts for months, and that Plaintiffs would not have enough time to conduct discovery concerning the new defenses before the document-production deadline.

Legal standard

The court explained that Rule 16 governs a request to amend a pleading after a scheduling-order deadline. Under Rule 16, the party seeking the change must show “good cause,” with diligence being the main focus. If good cause is shown, the party must also satisfy Rule 15’s requirements for amendment.

Court’s reasoning

The court found good cause. It determined that Defendants had acted reasonably diligently because the amendments were based on facts discovered after July 6, 2023. Defendants sought Plaintiffs’ agreement on July 27, 2023, and filed the motion on August 1, 2023, the same day Plaintiffs rejected the request.

The court also found that Plaintiffs were unlikely to suffer prejudice. It noted that nearly two months remained before fact discovery closed, six months remained before the deadline for dispositive motions, and more than a year remained before trial.

Ruling

The court GRANTED Defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended answer out of time, ECF No. 98. It also VACATED the January 25, 2024 hearing on the motion. The order addressed the timing and propriety of the amended pleading; it did not decide the underlying claims or defenses.