Bell v. Upper CT Valley Hosp., et al.

2016 DNH 158

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: September 8, 2016
• Docket: 14-cv-551-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Darcie Bell and Timothy Bell, Plaintiffs

v. Case No. 14-cv-551-SM Opinion No. 2016 DNH 158 Upper Connecticut Valley Hospital Association d/b/a Upper Connecticut Valley Hospital and Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Defendants

O R D E R

Plaintiffs seek leave of the court to file an amended

complaint. Defendants object, claiming the deadline for

amending the pleadings, as established in the court’s original

scheduling order, passed more than six months before plaintiffs

filed the pending motion. See Parties’ Discovery Plan (document

no. 14), approved and adopted as the court’s scheduling order on

April 1, 2015. And, say defendants, plaintiffs have not shown

“good cause” for their failure to amend the complaint before

that deadline passed, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.

Defendants’ reliance upon the court’s original scheduling

order (and plaintiffs’ silence on the issue) is a bit puzzling

since the court has amended that order several times, each time extending various pre-trial deadlines. The most recent

scheduling order adopted by the court specifically provides that

plaintiffs may amend their complaint through June 1, 2016. See

Motion to Extend Time (document no. 21), granted by order dated

April 26, 2016.

Plaintiffs’ pending motion to amend was filed on May 6,

2016 - plainly before the June 1 deadline established by the

court. Yet, in their motion, plaintiffs ignore that revised

deadline. And, defendants barely acknowledge it, referencing it

only once (in a footnote) in Dartmouth Hitchcock’s memorandum.

There, Dartmouth Hitchcock suggests that, despite explicit

language to the contrary, “the parties never intended to extend

the November, 2015 date originally outlined in the parties’

Joint Discovery Plan for amendment of the Complaint.”

Defendant’s memorandum (document no. 36) at 1 n.1. That claim

is, however, completely undeveloped and appears to be

inconsistent with earlier representations made by Dartmouth

Hitchcock. See Partial Objection to Motion to Extend (document

22) at 1 (in which Dartmouth Hitchcock noted that, “We can agree

to an extended schedule” for “everything but the trial date.”)

(emphasis supplied).

The court approved and entered a scheduling order that

permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint on or before June

2 1, 2016. Their pending motion to amend was filed prior to that

deadline. That motion (document no. 29) is granted. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

September 8, 2016

cc: Kelly E. Reardon, Esq. Robert I. Reardon, Jr., Esq. Leslie C. Nixon, Esq. David J. Krolikowski, Esq. Melissa M. Hanlon, Esq. Stephen A. Ryan, Esq. Gregory G. Peters, Esq. Pierre A. Chabot, Esq.