Mays v. Sherburne County Jail

Background

The court considered Plaintiff Otis Mays’s letter, docketed November 5, 2020. Mays made three requests: permission to seek amendment of his complaint after the October 19, 2020 scheduling-order deadline; disqualification of defense counsel Andrew Wolf from representing Janell Hussain, Joshua Kolar, Adrain Johnson, Michael SEig, Shari Kiscaden, and Travis Lindstrom; and a hearing concerning discovery that Defendants allegedly had not provided.

Amendment request

The court explained that a party seeking to amend a complaint after a scheduling deadline must first show “good cause.” The key question is diligence: whether the party acted diligently but could not have proposed the amendment earlier. Examples of good cause can include a change in the law, newly discovered facts, or another changed circumstance that made the proposed amendment more viable after the deadline.

The court found that Mays had not demonstrated good cause based on his letter. It did not grant permission to amend. Instead, the court explained that Mays would need to file a motion to amend, a supporting memorandum, a proposed amended complaint, and an affidavit or declaration explaining whether good cause existed for missing the deadline. The court reminded him that his original complaint remained the operative pleading.

Request to disqualify defense counsel

The court stated that disqualifying an opposing lawyer is an extreme measure and should be ordered only when necessary. Mays suggested that some corrections officers might have conflicts with other defendants and might need to give testimony supporting his case. But the court concluded that he had not shown how Wolf’s representation of multiple defendants would cause injury to Mays himself. The court therefore denied the request to disqualify Wolf and also denied Mays’s related request for an evidentiary hearing about possible conflicts.

Discovery request

Mays also asked the court to set a discovery hearing and order Defendants to provide “kites, grievances, documents I signed, and jail responses.” The court noted that it had already ordered Defendants to respond to Mays’s discovery requests, including this demand. The court had previously stated that it would issue an appropriate order based on the written submissions without a hearing. It explained that, if a hearing became necessary, it would notify the parties. The order did not set a discovery hearing.

Disposition

The court did not grant amendment permission based on Mays’s letter. It denied the requests to disqualify defense counsel and to hold an evidentiary hearing about alleged conflicts, and it did not set the requested discovery hearing. Judge Katherine Menendez signed the order.