Motion to Amend Pleadings: Relevant Delay is to Trial Date

Posted on July 8, 2009 by R. David Donoghue

Connetics Corp. v. Pentech Pharms., Inc., No. 07 C 2230, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2009) (Gottschall, J.).

Judge Gottschall granted defendants' motion to amend their answers to include new invalidity and unenforceability affirmative defenses and counterclaims in this ANDA patent case involving plaintiff's patented pharmaceutical LUXIQ.  The Court held that the amended answers and counterclaims were appropriate, although they were sought after the Court's deadline to amend the pleadings for reasons similar to Judge Lienenweber's analysis in a motion to amend adding the same defenses and claims in a related case -- click here to read the Blog's post on that opinion.  Of particular note, the Court held that the delay at issue is delay of the trial, not a party's delay in seeking to amend.  In this case, the Court had recently extended fact discovery.  So, plaintiffs had time to seek discovery on the defenses and counterclaims without delaying the trial date.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link

Amended Pleading Filed Before Deadline to Amend Does Not Prejudice

Posted on July 6, 2009 by R. David Donoghue

Connetics Corp. v. Pentech Pharms., Inc., No. 08 C 2230, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2009) (Leinenweber, J.).

Judge Leinenweber granted defendants' motion to amend their answers including new invalidity and unenforceability affirmative defenses and counterclaims in this ANDA patent case involving plaintiff's patented pharmaceutical OLUX.  The Court held that the amended answers and counterclaims were appropriate because they were filed before the Court's deadline for amended pleadings, even though the parties briefed the motion to amend as if the amendment was sought after the deadline.  Furthermore, defendants did not unduly delay in seeking to amend.  The motion to amend was filed within several months of depositions in which new information necessary for the amendments was disclosed.  And the litigation was still in its early stages so the amendments would not cause any prejudice.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link

Court to Counsel: Play Nice

Posted on January 3, 2007 by R. David Donoghue

Martin Eng. Co. v. CVP Group, Inc., No. 06 C 4687, 2006 WL 3541777 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2006) (Cole, J.).

Judge Cole granted defendant's motion for a 21 day extension to respond to written discovery requests.  Plaintiff refused to agree to the extension (for discovery due eight months prior to the close of fact discovery) and filed a written objection to defendant's motion citing a "pattern of dilatory conduct."  As examples of the pattern, plaintiff identified two items.  First, that it took defendant two weeks to respond to plaintiff's settlement offer, and only then after repeated calls from plaintiff.  And second, that defendant's Rule 26 disclosures were served nearly two weeks late.  The Court made clear that it did not condone a party ignoring the Court's deadlines or delay more generally, but noted that "not all delays are the same."

Plaintiff's objection to the extension ignored defendant's justification for its request.  Defendant's counsel, a solo practitioner, was involved in another case in the Northern District in which Judge Kocoras had recently ordered that fact discovery close a few weeks after defendant's responses were do in this case, requiring that defendant's counsel devote "significant time" to the other case.

Based on defendant's explanation, the Court stated that "the request was reasonable, and the plaintiff's response (and ensuing written objection) quite the opposite and needlessly required the expenditure of time that could have been more profitably utilized."  The Court also noted general concerns among some of the Northern District judges regarding "the needless conflict involved in the day-to-day interactions among lawyers" citing articles by Judge Gettleman, We Can Do Better, 25 LITIGATION 3 (Summer 1999), Judge Kennelly, From Lawyer To Judge, 2001 LITIGATION 3 (Summer 2001), and Judge Shadur, Hardball Litigators, 20 LITIGATION 21 (1993).  Unfortunately, the articles are no longer available online, but you may be able to get copies from the ABA here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link