Free Order on Motion for Joinder - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00776-MMS

Document 66

Filed 01/17/2008

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 05-776C (Filed: January 17, 2008) ************************************* AG-INNOVATIONS, INC., * LARRY FAILLACE, LINDA FAILLACE, * and HOUGHTON FREEMAN, * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * ************************************* ORDER Before the court are plaintiffs' Motion to Join Additional Party Plaintiffs and for Leave to File an Amended Complaint ("Pls.' Mot." or "motion"), Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Join Additional Party Plaintiffs and for Leave to File an Amended Complaint ("Def.'s Resp." or "response"), and Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Join Additional Party Plaintiffs and for Leave to File an Amended Complaint ("Pls.' Reply" or "reply"). In their motion, plaintiffs request leave from the court to add three party plaintiffs to this action, all of whom "are related to or owned by plaintiff Freeman and hold legal title to certain [of] the assets that are the subject of this litigation." Pls.' Mot. 1. Joinder under RCFC 17(a) is appropriate, according to plaintiffs, because defendant will suffer no prejudice from the addition of the proposed parties, none of the factual allegations will change, and defendant was previously aware of the existence and involvement of these proposed parties. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs appended to their motion a proposed copy of their amended complaint as well as a black-line version identifying proposed changes. Defendant states in its response that it "do[es] not dispute" that the three proposed parties "should be joined . . . in this action . . . ." Def.'s Resp. 1. Defendant does, however, maintain that the late addition of these plaintiffs has prejudiced it. Specifically, it expresses concern about its ability to complete discovery which, at the time defendant filed its response, was set to conclude on December 13, 2007. Defendant requests that the court grant plaintiffs' motion as well as its own request for an enlargement of time "to complete whatever follow-up and supplemental discovery is necessary with respect to these new plaintiffs."1 Id. at 7. Defendant devotes the remainder of its
1

On November 28, 2007, defendant filed its Second Motion for Enlargement of Time for Defendant to Complete Discovery, wherein it asserted that the reason for the requested

Case 1:05-cv-00776-MMS

Document 66

Filed 01/17/2008

Page 2 of 2

response and accompanying appendix to recounting specific instances in which it maintains plaintiffs interfered with the discovery process. Plaintiffs' reply indicates their consent to an extension of the discovery deadline, but states that "the Government has not consented to plaintiffs' joinder of additional parties, despite notification of plaintiffs' position." Pls.' Reply at 1-2. Plaintiffs argue that defendant has suffered no prejudice, particularly in light of an extension of the discovery period, and devote the remainder of their reply and accompanying appendix to "correct[ing] numerous false and inappropriate statements and mischaracterizations asserted by the Government." Id. at 2. Because the court has already granted defendant's motion for an extension of time such that defendant can engage in discovery as it relates to the addition of three proposed parties, defendant's argument that it will suffer prejudice without an extension is now moot. The February 29 deadline for completion of discovery remains unchanged by this Order, and plaintiffs shall ensure that the government timely receives all information and documents that are in the possession, custody, or control of the additional parties which are responsive to the written discovery requests previously served upon plaintiffs. Lastly, with respect to the various allegations of misconduct set forth by both parties, the court reiterates that it takes no position. The parties are once again reminded that failure to cooperate in good faith can lead to the court conducting a hearing to determine whether sanctions are appropriate, and the court will not hesitate to pursue this cause if necessary. Accordingly, the court grants plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint joining the three additional party plaintiffs no later than Friday, January 25, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Margaret M. Sweeney MARGARET M. SWEENEY Judge

enlargement was due to plaintiffs' proposed addition of three new plaintiffs. The court granted defendant's motion on December 14, 2007, and set the close of discovery in this case for February 29, 2008. 2