Kornotzki v. Jawad

Background

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff Tariq Jawad sought permission to amend his amended answer and counterclaims to add causes of action for conversion and trespass to chattels against Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant Eberhard Kornotzki. The court had previously set a deadline for any motion to amend, and Jawad filed his request several months after that deadline.

Arguments and Analysis

Because the amendment request was late, the court required Jawad to show good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). The primary consideration was whether Jawad had acted diligently. Kornotzki argued that Jawad could have brought the claims earlier and that the amendment would prejudice him.

The court rejected both arguments. It found that the prejudice concern was substantially addressed by Jawad's reply and by the court's extension of the discovery-completion deadline. The court also found that Jawad had acted diligently. Jawad had requested documents and communications relating to archived material from email accounts in the "@bridgeinnov.com" domain. Kornotzki had represented that he possessed an offline backup of Jawad's emails from September 8, 2015, through June 19, 2019. After Kornotzki produced emails and later represented that he had provided the complete and only archive in his possession, it became clear that many emails were missing or had been deleted. Jawad filed his motion within one month. The proposed claims relied primarily on the alleged deletion or destruction of the emails, an allegation Jawad would not have had reason to make until the missing emails became apparent.

Ruling and Effect

Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Jawad's motion for leave to amend the amended counterclaims. The court also approved redactions to ECF Nos. 42-8 and 42-9, substantially for the reasons stated in ECF No. 51, noting that it did not need to review or rely on the redacted material to decide the motion. Jawad was ordered to file the amended counterclaims no later than July 17, 2020. Under the court's June 3, 2020 order, Kornotzki was required to answer them within two weeks after the date of the opinion and order. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 40 and 43.