Leftwich v. County of Dakota

Background

Leroy Leftwich, trustee of the statutory class of next of kin to Cameron Leftwich, filed the case on April 27, 2018. The parties proposed, and the court adopted, an October 29, 2018 deadline for motions to amend the pleadings. The scheduling order also required the parties to diligently pursue any investigation or discovery needed to meet that deadline.

On January 2, 2019—the day fact discovery closed—Leftwich moved to extend the deadline and amend the complaint. He sought to add four alleged customs and practices against the City of Eagan and two alleged customs and practices against the County of Dakota. The proposed allegations concerned the handling of medical and mental-health information, screening for suicidal ideation, and emergency monitoring or response for detained people.

Parties’ Positions

Leftwich argued that he learned of the additional alleged customs and practices through depositions taken in December 2018. He also argued that written discovery had not revealed the information and that the defendants’ responses had not given him reason to know that depositions would provide additional information.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that Leftwich lacked good cause because he had not diligently met the October 29 deadline and that an untimely amendment would prejudice them.

Court’s Analysis

Because Leftwich moved to amend after the scheduling-order deadline, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which requires good cause to change the schedule. The court explained that diligence is the primary measure of good cause and that the question was whether Leftwich showed that the existing schedule could not reasonably be met despite diligent efforts.

The court found that Leftwich did not meet that standard. He did not schedule the relevant fact depositions until November 2018, weeks after the amendment deadline, and took them in December. The court determined that the witnesses were the individually named parties and the City and County representatives designated for organizational depositions, rather than witnesses who had only later become known. It also found that Leftwich could have pursued allegedly incomplete written discovery earlier or asked to extend the amendment deadline before it expired.

The court rejected the argument that the later discovery justified the delay. It stated that the scheduling order intentionally set the amendment deadline before the close of fact discovery and required discovery needed for an amendment to be pursued before that deadline. The court also concluded that Leftwich had not shown another basis for good cause.

The court expressly did not decide whether the proposed amendments needed to be pleaded or whether they were sufficiently pleaded. The order addressed only whether Leftwich had shown good cause to change the scheduling order.

Disposition

The court ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Extend Time and to Amend Complaint was DENIED.