Brooklyn Music Distribution, Inc. v. Vydia, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-01220
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Vaeso v. High Peak, Judge Engelmayer denied Vaeso’s request to extend the deadline for amending its complaint because it waited too long and amendment would delay discovery.
Vaeso, Inc. could not obtain the requested extension of time to amend its complaint. High Peak Software, Inc. avoided the additional discovery and delay that the court found would result from the proposed amendment.
What happened
Vaeso, Inc. v. High Peak Software, Inc. concerned Vaeso’s request for more time to amend its complaint to add claims involving delay damages, additional expenses, and lost opportunity. The court’s case-management order required amendment motions within 30 days, and fact discovery was scheduled to end on July 27, 2022.
Vaeso filed its request about two months after the amendment deadline and did not explain why the proposed claims could not have been included in its original complaint. High Peak also argued, and Vaeso appeared to acknowledge, that the new claims would require additional discovery and delay the case.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Vaeso’s motion for an extension of time to amend the complaint. The opinion found that Vaeso had not shown good cause for changing the scheduling order and that the late amendment would prejudice the timely resolution of the case.
The detailed version
- Brooklyn Music Distribution, Inc. v. Vydia, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01220
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 1, 2022
Background
Vaeso filed its complaint on February 14, 2022, and High Peak Software, Inc. answered on March 8, 2022. At an initial pretrial conference on March 29, 2022, the court issued a case-management plan. The plan required any motion to amend the complaint or add parties to be filed within 30 days. It also set July 27, 2022, as the end of fact discovery.
On June 27, 2022, Vaeso moved for an extension of time to amend its complaint. Vaeso said it wanted to add claims concerning delay damages, additional-expense damages, and loss of opportunity. The court directed High Peak to respond and Vaeso to file its proposed amended complaint. High Peak opposed the request.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. But when a scheduling order sets an amendment deadline, the party seeking a change must also show good cause under Rule 16. The court explained that good cause primarily depends on the moving party’s diligence. The court also considered whether the amendment would cause undue delay or prejudice to High Peak.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Vaeso’s request was approximately two months late. Vaeso did not provide reasons why the proposed damages-related claims could not have been included in its original complaint. Because Vaeso had not acted diligently, the court held that it had not shown good cause to modify the scheduling order.
The court also found that High Peak would be prejudiced. The proposed claims would require additional discovery, and discovery was already well advanced. The court concluded that allowing the amendment would delay discovery and interfere with the timely resolution of the case.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Vaeso’s motion for an extension of time to amend the complaint. The opinion did not decide the merits of the proposed damages-related claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.