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
-
500 Coke employees lost their health insurance the day after they went on strike. The union has sued under ERISA , claiming the action wa...
-
(BY HUGO) On 27 April, the Québec Ministry for Sustainable development, Environment and Parks presented a regulation project on pricing of ...
-
Well kids I plan to scoot out of here shortly, to begin my long solemn weekend regimen of prayer , reflection , and expanding my abdomen , s...
-
(BY HUGO) Just a quick post to follow up on reports relating to shale gas leaks from wells in Québec. The Québec Ministry for Natural Resour...
-
Former CFO for R. Allen Stanford, Jim Davis, pleaded guilty to fraud yesterday . This is probably not good news for Proskauer's Tom Sjob...
-
(BY HUGO) Les Cahiers de droit just published their issue 3 & 4, Vol. 51, a special issue on water law with many articles exploring int...
-
(BY HUGO) Since the beginning of May, the flow of an emissary of Lake Champlain, the Richelieu River, is near or at record level, and a larg...
-
Billy Shields has a nice piece on the never-ending saga involving BDO Seidman and the new trial that commenced this week against BDO Intern...
-
Well kids it's the end of another work week (unless you are working all weekend or don't have a job at all), so I'm flying the c...
-
You know, I find it more than a little annoying that Scott Rothstein has stolen my 3d DCA "bunker" imagery. It's mine, dammit!...