Strickland v. Ujiri ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ALAN STRICKLAND AND KELLY STRICKLAND, Case No. 20-cv-981-YGR 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED JOINT ANSWER AND 11 v. COUNTERCLAIM; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 12 MASAI UJIRI; TORONTO RAPTORS; MAPLE 13 L NE AA TF IO S NP AO LR BTS A & SK E ETN BT AE LR LT A AI SN SM OE CN IAT T; ION, DKT. NO. 35, 38 14 Defendants. 15 16 Pending before the Court is the Motion of defendants Masai Ujiri and Toronto 17 Raptors/Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment for Leave to File an Amended Joint Answer and 18 Counterclaim. (Dkt. No. 35.) The only proposed amendment asserts a counterclaim on defendant 19 Ujiri’s behalf against plaintiff Alan Strickland for excessive force pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 20 assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, based upon recently obtained 21 discovery in this matter. In all other respects, defendants’ original Joint Answer remains 22 unchanged. Per the Court’s scheduling order (Dkt. No. 30), any motions to amend pleadings at this 23 point in the proceedings require a showing of good cause pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4). The Court 24 finds such good cause and the motion is GRANTED.1 25 26 27 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES 28 the hearing set for September 22, 2020. 1 Defendants bring their motion pursuant to Rules 15 and 16(b)(4). A request to amend a 2 pleading after the Court’s deadline for doing so implicates both Rule 15 and 16.2 Rule 16(b) 3 governs the issuance and modification of pretrial scheduling orders, and Rule 15(a) governs 4 amendment of pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 15(a). “Rule 16(b)’ s ‘good cause’ standard 5 primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth 6 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Under Rule 15(a), “[t]he four factors 7 commonly used to determine the proprietary of a motion for leave to amend are bad faith, undue 8 delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.” Abels v. JBC Legal Group, 9 P.C., 229 F.R.D. 152, 155-56 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 10 Based upon the timing of the discovery responses giving rise to the proposed amendment, 11 the Court finds good cause to permit the filing of the proposed amended joint answer and 12 counterclaim pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4). The record indicates no failure of diligence by defendants 13 in seeking leave to amend at this time. On July 21, 2020, plaintiffs served their first document 14 production, which contained several pieces of video footage including that of plaintiff Alan 15 Strickland’s body camera, capturing the alleged encounter from his viewpoint. The motion to 16 amend was filed with reasonable diligence thereafter. 17 The Court further finds no reason to alter the current scheduling order beyond permitting 18 this amendment. Trial is over fourteen months away, beginning on December 13, 2021, and fact 19 and expert discovery deadlines are also several months away, on April 2, 2021 and June 4, 2021, 20 respectively. While plaintiffs suggest that the proposed amendment will require pushing out 21 discovery deadlines and the trial, they do so in only the most conclusory manner. 22 Further, considering the factors applicable to leave to amend under Rule 15, the Court does 23 not find bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to plaintiff, or futility of the proposed amendment. That 24 defendant Ujiri did not file a counterclaim immediately against plaintiff Strickland does not imply 25 bad faith. Strickland does dispute that the video upon which the counterclaim is based was recently 26 2 See Phillips, J. and Stevenson, J., FED. CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (Rutter Group Prac. 27 Guide) § 15:32 (“Once the scheduling order deadline has passed, Rule 16(b)(4) requires a party to 28 show ‘good cause’ before being granted leave to amend the pleadings, in addition to the showing required under Rule 15.”) (emphasis in original). 1 || produced in discovery. Filing the request to amend thereafter suggests neither bad faith nor undue 2 ||delay. Further, no prejudice has been shown. Discovery is in its early stages, the discovery 3 || deadlines are several months away, and no depositions apparently have been taken by any party. 4 || The proposed amendment does not fail on its face to state a claim. The merits analysis Strickland 5 |] urges is not appropriate on a motion to amend the pleadings. Defendants meet the objective factors 6 || for granting leave to amend. 7 With respect to the administrative motion to seal (Dkt. No. 38), the motion is DENIED AS 8 ||MooT. Plaintiffs seek to seal documents designated by defendant NBA as confidential pursuant to 9 || the protective order entered in this case. Defendant NBA filed a response to the motion (Dkt. No. 10 || 40) withdrawing the confidentiality designation as to the document identified as Exhibit 4 to 11 || plaintiffs’ administrative motion. Thus, the administrative motion as to Exhibit 4 is moot. 12 || Plaintiffs further seek to seal two-and-a-half pages of proposed supplemental briefing based on that E 13 || document, identified as Exhibit 5 to the administrative motion. The Court has considered the 14 || arguments therein and finds that they do not alter the analysis. Plaintiffs are directed to file an 15 || unredacted version of the documents on the public docket within 7 days of issuance of this Order. Z 16 || See Civil L. R. 79-5(f)(2). 17 Defendants shall file their proposed amended joint answer and counterclaim within 3 court 18 || days of issuance of this Order. 19 Plaintiffs shall file their response to the counterclaim within 21 calendar days thereafter. 20 This Order terminates Docket Nos. 35 and 38. 21 IT Is SO ORDERED. 22 || Date: September 15, 2020 pe ba YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 23 NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28