Summary
The court denies Plaintiffs’ motions for leave to file conventionally, to file under seal, to reconsider prior interlocutory dismissal orders, and to file a Third Amended Complaint. The court concludes that the proposed amendment is untimely, lacks good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), and would cause undue delay and prejudice. It also finds that the asserted newly discovered evidence does not warrant reconsideration under Rule 54(b).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs showed good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to modify the expired deadline for amending pleadings.
- Whether leave to file a Third Amended Complaint should be denied because of undue delay, prejudice, and the likely disruption of the scheduling order and trial.
- Whether plaintiffs demonstrated grounds under Rule 54(b) to reconsider prior nonfinal orders dismissing claims and defendants.
- Whether purportedly newly discovered evidence warranted reconsideration when plaintiffs did not show that the evidence was unavailable earlier or explain their failure to present it before the prior rulings.
- Whether the motions for leave to file conventionally and under seal should be denied because the underlying motions were denied and the sealing requests were otherwise inadequately supported.
Holdings
- Plaintiffs were not entitled to leave to amend because they did not demonstrate good cause for modifying the expired deadline under Rule 16(b)(4).
- Leave to amend was properly denied because the proposed amendment would cause undue delay and prejudice and would disrupt the case schedule and impending trial.
- Plaintiffs were not entitled to reconsideration of the prior nonfinal orders because they did not show an intervening change in controlling law, newly discovered evidence unavailable earlier, clear error, or manifest injustice.
- The motions for leave to file conventionally and under seal were denied; the sealing motion was also moot because the underlying motion for reconsideration and motion to amend were denied.
Key quotations
“Despite Rule 15(a)’s “mandate” that leave to amend is to be freely given when justice requires, leave to amend may be denied for such reasons as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.”” (Section II.A.)
“In the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources, reconsideration of an order is an extraordinary remedy and is employed sparingly.” (Section II.B.)
Factual background
The action arises from a May 18, 2021 police shooting in which Montgomery officers fired into a vehicle occupied by the plaintiffs. Gary Moncrief died from a gunshot wound, and a coroner reported that he died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound while also noting a potentially survivable graze wound. Plaintiffs later sought to amend their complaint to allege that Moncrief did not possess or fire a gun and that evidence concerning the handgun had been planted or mishandled.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed the action in May 2023 and later filed amended complaints. The court entered partial dismissals in November 2025, leaving claims pending against the City, Brown, and Albrecht while dismissing several other defendants. Plaintiffs then sought reconsideration and leave to add a section 1983 conspiracy claim and cure pleading deficiencies, relying principally on purportedly newly discovered evidence. The court denied amendment as untimely, unsupported by good cause, and prejudicial, denied reconsideration, and denied the filing-related motions as moot or otherwise unwarranted.