Tescher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-02266
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Tescher v. Experian, Judge Halpern denied Tescher’s motion to add class allegations because he lacked good cause and amendment would prejudice Experian.
Chaim B. Tescher’s attempt to add class allegations was denied; Experian Information Solutions, Inc. avoided the proposed late amendment and the additional class-related discovery the court said it would require.
What happened
In Tescher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Chaim B. Tescher asked to amend his complaint again to add class allegations. The request came more than six months after the court’s deadline for motions to amend and while discovery was ongoing.
The court said Tescher had to show a valid reason—called “good cause”—for changing the scheduling order and filing the amendment late. It found that he did not explain why he could not have obtained the relevant discovery earlier. The court also found that the amendment would unfairly burden Experian and delay the case by requiring additional class-related discovery.
Judge Philip M. Halpern treated Tescher’s pre-motion letter as the motion to amend, waived the pre-motion conference requirement, and denied the motion to amend.
The detailed version
- Tescher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · No. 7:21-cv-02266
- Philip Halpern
- Dec. 15, 2022
Background
Chaim B. Tescher sued Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and other defendants. The case was originally filed in New York Supreme Court for Rockland County and was later transferred to the federal court. Tescher filed a First Amended Complaint in May 2021. After the court ruled on the defendants’ motion to dismiss, it entered a scheduling order and the parties exchanged written discovery and took depositions.
The scheduling order required any motion to amend the complaint to add parties to be filed by June 2, 2022. Tescher later sought to amend the First Amended Complaint to add class allegations. His December 7, 2022 pre-motion letter was filed after the amendment deadline and shortly before the December 30, 2022 fact-discovery deadline.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that when a party seeks to amend a complaint after a scheduling-order deadline, the party must first show “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). Good cause generally requires a showing that the party acted diligently and could not reasonably have met the deadline.
The court found that Tescher did not meet that burden. Although discovery had been underway since May 2021, he offered no explanation for why he could not obtain the discovery relevant to the proposed class allegations earlier. The court also found that allowing the amendment so close to the fact-discovery deadline would unfairly prejudice Experian. It would require additional time for class-related discovery, further extend the discovery schedule, and delay resolution of the case.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern waived the pre-motion conference requirement, construed Tescher’s pre-motion letter as a motion to amend, and denied the motion to amend. The opinion does not state that the court decided whether the proposed class could ultimately be certified.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.