Possession of Material Facts Necessary to Amend Complaint Three Months Prior to Deadline Weighs Against Rule 16 Good Cause Showing

In a redacted opinion, the court partially denied plaintiffs’ motion to modify the scheduling order to allow the addition of a new individual defendant because plaintiffs did not demonstrate sufficient diligence under Rule 16. “Whether Plaintiffs have established good cause under Rule 16(b) is a close call. The Court finds it is possible Plaintiffs were not alerted to the alleged detailed involvement of [the proposed defendant] until after the date to add parties had passed, but there is no doubt Plaintiffs: (1) believed [the proposed defendant] was a participant in the conspiracy (as evidenced by the references to him in the earlier complaints); and (2) had in their possession documents that they believe support their position, which they could have reviewed prior to [the deadline for amended complaints]. The material facts that Plaintiffs desired regarding [the proposed defendant] were in their possession [at least three months prior to the deadline].”

In re: Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation, 3-15-md-02670 (CASD 2018-04-10, Order) (Janis L. Sammartino)

2018-04-12T12:21:03+00:00 April 12th, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|