Krishnan v. Cambia Health Solutions Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 21, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00574
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE

10 SRIRAM KRISHNAN, No. 2:20-cv-574-RAJ 11

12 Plaintiff, v.

13 ORDER CAMBIA HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC. and

14 REGENCE BCBS OF OREGON,

15 Defendants. 16

17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Amend Answer to 19 Complaint. Dkt. # 19. Plaintiff opposes this motion. Dkt. # 21. For the reasons below, 20 the Court GRANTS the motion. 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 A party may amend its pleading only with the written consent of the opposing 23 party or with the court’s leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court should “freely give 24 leave when justice so requires.” Id. In determining whether leave to amend is 25 appropriate, the court considers four factors: “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the 26 opposing party, and/or futility.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 27 1 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citation and quotations omitted). 2 Here, Defendants Cambia Health Solutions, Inc. and Regence BCBS of Oregon 3 (“Defendants”) move the Court for leave to amend their answer by adding a defense 4 based on information gained through discovery. Dkt. # 19 at 1. Specifically, Defendants 5 allege that Plaintiff Sriram Krishna’s (“Plaintiff”) responses to Defendants’ 6 interrogatories and requests for production included documents containing Defendant 7 Cambia’s confidential information, such as wage, budget, and product, and information. 8 Id. Defendants claim that Plaintiff’s removal of such documents from Cambia after his 9 termination from Cambia violated Cambia’s confidentiality policies and is grounds for 10 termination. Id. Based on this newly discovered information, Defendants seek to add a 11 defense to its answer pursuant to the after-acquired evidence doctrine. Id. at 3. 12 Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ proposed amendment would be futile because 13 “after-acquired evidence is not a defense to wrongful termination in violation of public 14 policy,” which is at issue here. Dkt. # 21 at 1. Plaintiff alleges that he was fired for 15 raising complaints about financial improprieties related to Cambia’s investments and 16 contends that the after-acquired evidence defense is unavailable to Defendants under 17 these circumstances. Id. at 3. Plaintiff is correct that after-acquired evidence is not a 18 defense to a wrongful termination on public policy grounds. See Martin v. Gonzaga 19 Univ., 425 P.3d 837, 846 (Wash. 2018) (noting “that there is no [Washington] case law to 20 support applying the after-acquired-evidence doctrine to a wrongful discharge claim”). 21 However, Defendants do not seek to assert after-acquired evidence as a complete 22 defense. Instead, as they explain in their motion, Dkt. # 19 at 8, and reply, Dkt. # 22 at 4, 23 they seek to introduce this evidence as a limit to the damages Plaintiff might recover, in 24 reliance on Martin v. Gonzaga Univ., 425 P.3d at 846 (nothing that “[the after-acquired] 25 doctrine limits the damages an employee may recover and does not limit liability as a 26 matter of law”). 27 The Court does not find that such an amendment would be futile at this stage in 1 the proceeding. In the absence of bad faith, prejudice, or undue delay, the Court finds no 2 reason to deny Defendants leave to amend their answer. 244 F.3d at 712. 3 4 III. CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer 6 to the Complaint is GRANTED. Dkt. # 19. 7 8 DATED this 21st day of April, 2021. A 9

10 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 11 United States District Judge 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27