Smith v. Gonzalez-Russell
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-07384
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Smith v. Gonzalez-Russell, Judge Subramanian allowed amendment to add Dr. McGurty after a missed deadline, reserving limitations issues for summary judgment.
John Smith, the existing defendants, and proposed defendant Dr. McGurty.
What happened
In Smith v. Gonzalez-Russell, John Smith asked to amend his complaint to add Dr. McGurty as a defendant. The court acknowledged that Smith missed the deadline for adding parties but found good cause for the delay because Smith said he could not understand Dr. McGurty’s involvement in the allegedly unconstitutional genital examination until documents and depositions were obtained.
Smith moved to amend less than three weeks after the last relevant deposition. Although discovery had closed, the court stated that no further discovery would occur unless Dr. McGurty sought discovery and thereby became subject to discovery. The court did not decide whether the amended claim would relate back to the original complaint or whether any limitations defense would succeed.
Judge Arun Subramanian directed Smith to file and serve the amended complaint and the order on proposed defendant McGurty by February 12, 2024. The court said it intended to address any limitations defenses in connection with an anticipated summary-judgment motion and directed the parties to be prepared to discuss relation back at a February 14 conference.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Gonzalez-Russell · No. 1:22-cv-07384
- Subramanian
- Feb. 9, 2024
Background
John Smith filed a motion to add Dr. McGurty as a party, which the court treated as a motion to amend the complaint. The court noted that Smith missed the deadline for adding parties. Smith said he could not understand Dr. McGurty’s involvement in the allegedly unconstitutional genital examination until key documents and depositions were taken in August and October 2023. Smith moved to amend less than three weeks after the last relevant deposition.
Court’s reasoning
The court found good cause for Smith’s delay under the deadline-management rule. It cited decisions stating that a period of less than three months can satisfy the requirement that a party act diligently. The court also noted that discovery had closed. Unless Dr. McGurty sought discovery and thereby became subject to discovery, the court stated that no further discovery would occur.
The court did not decide the anticipated limitations defense or whether the proposed claim would relate back to the original complaint. It stated that Dr. McGurty could assert any available defense after being added and that the court intended to address those defenses in connection with a summary-judgment motion that the existing defendants anticipated filing.
Disposition and next steps
The court allowed Smith to proceed with the amendment by directing him to file the amended complaint and serve it, along with the order, on proposed defendant McGurty by February 12, 2024. Counsel for McGurty could attend the February 14, 2024 post-discovery conference, where the parties were to be prepared to discuss the relation-back arguments. The clerk was directed to terminate Docket 53. The order did not decide the underlying constitutional claim or any limitations defense.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.