Ijoor v. Consummate Computer Consultants Systems LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GAUTUM IJOOR,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 15-1292 (ESH)
CONSUMMATE COMPUTER
CONSULTANTS SYSTEMS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Consummate Computer Consultants Systems, LLC moves for leave to amend
its answer to assert counterclaims. The Court grants defendant’s motion after consideration of
defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Assert Counterclaim, the Memorandum of
Law submitted in support, plaintiff’s opposition thereto, and each parties’ supplemental briefing.
DISCUSSION
In the present case, the parties jointly proposed September 15, 2016 as the deadline for
amendment to pleadings, which the Court accepted. (Order, Sept. 8, 2016, ECF No. 22.) Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), “[a] scheduling order may be modified only for good
cause and with the judge’s consent.” “Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard focuses on the
timeliness of the amendment and the reasons for its tardy submission.” Lurie v. Mid-Atl.
Permanente Med. Grp., P.C., 589 F. Supp. 2d 21, 23 (D.D.C. 2008). “Additionally, if the
moving party establishes that she acted diligently, she must also show that there is a lack of
prejudice to the opposing party.” Lovely-Coley v. D.C., No. CV 12-1464 (RBW), 2017 WL
2533339, at *3 (D.D.C. June 9, 2017).
Defendant seeks to amend its answer to assert counterclaims based on plaintiff’s conduct
which may have violated non-compete provisions of employment agreements between defendant
and plaintiff. During discovery, in September 2016 and January 2017, defendant had issued to
plaintiff, on two separate occasions, various discovery requests seeking information and
documents concerning any business activities plaintiff may have engaged in outside of his
employment with C3 Systems both during the time of his employment and after. (Def.’s Mem.
in Reply to Pl.’s Opp. to Def.’s Mot. at 4, ECF No. 37 (“Def.’s Reply”).) Plaintiff objected to
producing such documents. (Id. at 4–5.) Defendant discovered most of the relevant information
forming the basis for its new counterclaims during discovery when it was conducting witness
interviews. (Id. at 5.). Defendant filed the instant motion within a month of learning the new
information.
Defendant acted diligently by filing the instant motion within a month of learning
information giving rise to its reason for amendment. Cf. Headfirst Baseball LLC v. Elwood, 206
F. Supp. 3d 148, 156 (D.D.C. 2016); see also United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs.,
Inc., 285 F.R.D. 133, 137 (D.D.C. 2012). Furthermore, plaintiff will not be prejudiced by
defendant’s amendment. Discovery has not concluded and defendant notes that it “would
consent to an extension of the discovery period to allow plaintiff additional time to complete the
necessary discovery.” (Def.’s Reply at 5); see Ellis v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 631 F. Supp. 2d
71, 80 (D.D.C. 2009).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Assert Counterclaim
2
is GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that Amended Answer and Counterclaim attached to defendant’s Motion is
ACCEPTED for filing as of the date of this Order and should be docketed as such; and it is
further
ORDERED that plaintiff shall file his responsive pleading on or before September 22,
2017.
/s/ Ellen Segal Huvelle
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
United States District Judge
Date: September 8, 2017
Copies to:
Sundeep Hora, Esq.
Eric W. Gunderson, Esq.
Magistrate Judge Meriweather
3