SFL Friday -- Southern Nights (and Grouts) Edition
in 11th Circuit, Friday
Hi kids, yes it's Friday and yes I'm packing it in early. In fact, I'm taking the whole day off.
I hope you all get to sneak out early today too.
Did you all see this 11th Circuit opinion released yesterday on "late" discovery and amending the pleadings?
First of all, I love the name -- Southern Grouts.
Nothing namby-pamby like "Twombly" -- this is a Venetian Salami-worthy casename, ready to stand the test of time!
In a nutshell, the plaintiff took a corporate rep deposition after the date to amend pleadings, then sought to amend the complaint one month later, citing "new" discovery obtained at the deposition.
The district court refused, and it was affirmed by the 11th, in a pretty tough opinion. As part of the litany of reasons plaintiff's counsel lacked "diligence" on this issue, the 11th even noted that the corporate rep depo was moved once by plaintiff's counsel. That plus "waiting" a month to amend.
While overall I understand the court's affirmance, especially since plaintiff's counsel may have already had this information, I wonder whether the opinion is a bit too rarefied and perhaps lacks an appreciation of real-life practitioner concerns and how litigation unfolds in a busy law office on a daily basis.
Is moving to amend one month after an important deposition "waiting"? It takes some time to even get the transcript, then you have to amend the complaint and draft the motion. I don't know how much actual "waiting" was involved.
And depos are often rescheduled -- particularly important ones like a 30(b)(6), for reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not the lawyer really wants to take the deposition.
That said, I do agree that if you are already outside the amendment deadline you need to move quickly and probably should not be rescheduling the deposition except for emergencies.
In all, the opinion is worth a read to keep us all aware of how important these deadlines can be, and what "good cause" is and isn't to the 11th nowadays.
Hmmm, maybe I'll come in this morning after all.
Ok, now I'm officially worried -- I'll check in with you all later today.
This entry was posted on at 2:26 AM and is filed under 11th Circuit, Friday. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.
- No comments yet.
VIP Followers
Info recommended by:
Webpages of law
Popular entries
-
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
-
UPDATE: There is pending legislation for major changes to the alimony statute in Massachusetts. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was filed on...
-
500 Coke employees lost their health insurance the day after they went on strike. The union has sued under ERISA , claiming the action wa...
-
Two weeks ago, a Florida man was arrested for logging on to his Facebook account and requesting that his estranged wife list him as a "...
-
Medical marijuana legal in some states, is creating some employment law problems . Seems employees with prescriptions for medicinal use of ...
-
Today marks day 100 of the Mott's strike . The pro-union writer, Michael Winship, does a pretty good job of outlining the economics of ...
-
This business owner's letter to the editor makes a strong case for preservation of the secret ballot for determining a union's maj...
-
Here is another example (the leather goods industry) of the absolute collapse of domestic manufacturing causing the elimination of high pa...
-
Responding to a request from Congressman Darrell Issa (R. CA), David Berry, the Inspector General for the NLRB has determined Craig Becke...
-
Boy it's slow out there, huh? I was going to point out that anybody with a law license is now apparently under consideration to be the n...