Securitas Electronic Security, Inc. v. DeBon
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-05323
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Securitas v. DeBon, Judge McMahon granted Securitas permission to add a contract claim and granted related discovery requests.
Securitas Electronic Security, Inc. may add a breach-of-contract claim against Bruce DeBon. Both parties received additional discovery-related relief: discovery was extended until June 17, 2022, and DeBon was allowed to serve new discovery demands.
What happened
Securitas Electronic Security, Inc. sued Bruce DeBon over alleged misuse of Securitas’s confidential information and property. Securitas later sought to add a breach-of-contract claim based on a 2015 agreement between DeBon and Kratos, whose rights Securitas acquired and received by assignment.
The court found that Securitas reasonably moved to amend after discovering the agreement during discovery. Although the new claim would require some additional discovery, the court found no undue prejudice because the claim involved the same conduct already at issue and the parties agreed that four additional months of discovery would be sufficient.
Judge Colleen McMahon granted Securitas’s motion to amend and directed it to file the proposed amended complaint. The judge also granted Securitas’s request to extend discovery until June 17, 2022, and granted DeBon’s request to serve new discovery demands concerning the new claim.
The detailed version
- Securitas Electronic Security, Inc. v. DeBon · No. 1:20-cv-05323
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 17, 2022
Background
Securitas Electronic Security, Inc. sued Bruce DeBon, a former Securitas employee, asserting six claims involving his alleged improper use and misappropriation of Securitas’s confidential and proprietary information and property. None of the original claims was for breach of contract.
During discovery, a third party produced a Proprietary Information Agreement executed in May 2015 between DeBon and Kratos Public Safety & Security Solutions Inc. The agreement included restrictive covenants prohibiting DeBon from soliciting Kratos’s customers and using its confidential information. Securitas stated that it acquired Kratos in June 2018 through a 100% stock purchase and received an assignment of Kratos’s rights under the agreement. Securitas also stated that it did not possess or know about the agreement before discovering it in the production.
Securitas moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 for leave to amend its complaint to add a claim that DeBon breached the agreement’s restrictive covenants.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 15 generally permits amendment when justice requires. The court considered whether Securitas had delayed improperly, acted in bad faith or for a delaying purpose, caused undue prejudice, or proposed a futile amendment.
The court found no undue delay. Securitas received the document production in July 2021, located the agreement on August 28, 2021, and moved to amend on September 28, 2021—before the extended deadline for amending pleadings. The court accepted Securitas’s explanation that it had not previously possessed or known about the agreement.
The court found that DeBon would experience some prejudice because the amendment would add a claim and require additional discovery. But it concluded that the prejudice was not undue because the new claim concerned the same conduct already involved in the case, DeBon had always possessed the contract, and the parties agreed that four additional months of discovery would be sufficient. The court also found no bad faith, delaying purpose, or futility; DeBon had not raised those grounds.
Rulings
Judge Colleen McMahon granted Securitas’s motion for leave to amend. Securitas was directed to file the proposed amended complaint as the amended complaint on the docket.
The court also granted Securitas’s request to extend discovery for four months from the motion’s disposition, setting the new discovery deadline as June 17, 2022. The court granted DeBon’s request for leave to serve new discovery demands to defend against the newly asserted breach-of-contract claim. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 57.
This order allowed Securitas to add the contract claim; it did not decide whether DeBon breached the agreement.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.