MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. Maverick Cutting and Breaking LLC

Background

While Maverick Cutting & Breaking LLC was performing sawcutting work on April 14, 2015, it cut two fiber-optic cables belonging to MCI Communications Services, Inc. and MCIMetro Access Transmission Services LLC, collectively referred to as MCI. Maverick was working at the direction of Carl Bolander & Sons, a subcontractor on a bridge-construction project for the City of Saint Paul.

MCI filed this action against Maverick on April 11, 2017, alleging trespass, negligence, and statutory liability. The scheduling order set November 3, 2017, as the deadline for motions to amend the pleadings to add claims or parties.

MCI sought project-related documents from Kraemer North America, LLC, Carl Bolander & Sons, and the City of Saint Paul. During a March 22, 2018, deposition, Kraemer produced a contract with the City of Saint Paul and a contract with Bolander. MCI moved to amend its complaint on April 26, 2018, arguing that the contracts were newly discovered evidence establishing good cause to amend after the deadline. Magistrate Judge Rau denied the motion, and MCI objected to that order.

Legal standard

Because MCI challenged a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive pretrial matter, the district court could reverse only if the order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A party seeking to amend pleadings after a scheduling-order deadline must first show good cause. The primary measure of good cause is the party’s diligence in trying to meet the deadline, although diligence is not the only possible way to show good cause.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the magistrate judge’s order was not clearly erroneous. MCI had discovered new evidence, but it missed the amendment deadline by more than five months, waited more than a month after receiving the contracts to file its motion, filed the motion more than a year after the original complaint, and filed it only five days before the close of fact discovery. The court also found that Maverick would be prejudiced.

The court further held that the order was not contrary to law. Courts have broad discretion to grant or deny motions to amend after a deadline has passed. Although no rule required MCI to contact the targets of its discovery informally after not receiving documents it believed existed, the magistrate judge could reasonably view MCI’s inaction as a lack of diligence. Requiring more than inaction in the circumstances of this case did not establish an improper legal standard.

Disposition

Judge John R. Tunheim overruled MCI’s appeal and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court denied MCI’s objection to Magistrate Judge Rau’s order denying MCI’s motion to amend the scheduling order to file an amended complaint and add a party based on newly discovered evidence.