![Case 9:11-cv-00072-SEH Document 118 Filed 01/12/12 Page 2 of 3
have a duty to preserve evidence without the necessity of a court order. No order
directing Defendants to preserve documents is warranted,
On November 30, 2011, Plaintiffs moved to file Fourth Amended
Complaint,1 which would add RICO claims, redefine the purported class, drop one
named Plaintiff and add two others, and add one Defendant. The motion is
opposed.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) states that the "court should freely give leave [to
amend] when justice requires." A scheduling order in this matter has not been
established and no discovery has occurred. Amendment is warranted.
ORDERED:
I. Plaintiffs' Motion to File Fourth Amended Complaint and Motion to
Drop and Add Parties2 is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiffs Motion for Preservation ofDocuments 3 is DENIED.
3. All other pending motions4 in this case are DENIED as moot, without
prejudice to renew, if appropriate.
4. Any renewed motions and supporting briefs and papers shall be
1 Document No. 112-1.
2 Document No. 112,
~ Document No. 42,
4 Document Nos, 40, 47, 49,51,53,56,75, and 116.
-2]()
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Ähnlich wie Judge Haddon Order
Ähnlich wie Judge Haddon Order (20)
Mehr von Byliner1
Mehr von Byliner1 (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Judge Haddon Order
- 1. Case 9:11-cv-00072-SEH Document 118 Filed 01/12/12 Page 1 of 3 FILED GREAT r.. , . 2012 JAN 12 ArrJ 10 25 'PtlPli'K ... ,:'j"f"'Y' ,1.,..0,- t- 11' i' ·"1 n ,. , '" v 'J ! BL_ _ _ _. DEPUTY CLERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION MICHELE REINHART, DAN DONOVAN,~dDEBORAH NETTER, individually ~d on behalf No. CV-II-72-M-SEH of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, ORDER vs. GREG MORTENSON, DAVID OLIVER RELIN, PENGUIN GROUP (USA), INC., a Delaware Corporation, and MC CONSULTING, INC., a Montan~ Corporation, Defend~ts. On August 3, 2011, Plaintiffs moved for preservation of documents. The motion is opposed. Plaintiffs have not shown that Defend~ts have destroyed, or will destroy, evidence. Moreover, Defend~ts acknowledge they are aware that all litigants -1
- 2. Case 9:11-cv-00072-SEH Document 118 Filed 01/12/12 Page 2 of 3 have a duty to preserve evidence without the necessity of a court order. No order directing Defendants to preserve documents is warranted, On November 30, 2011, Plaintiffs moved to file Fourth Amended Complaint,1 which would add RICO claims, redefine the purported class, drop one named Plaintiff and add two others, and add one Defendant. The motion is opposed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) states that the "court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice requires." A scheduling order in this matter has not been established and no discovery has occurred. Amendment is warranted. ORDERED: I. Plaintiffs' Motion to File Fourth Amended Complaint and Motion to Drop and Add Parties2 is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiffs Motion for Preservation ofDocuments 3 is DENIED. 3. All other pending motions4 in this case are DENIED as moot, without prejudice to renew, if appropriate. 4. Any renewed motions and supporting briefs and papers shall be 1 Document No. 112-1. 2 Document No. 112, ~ Document No. 42, 4 Document Nos, 40, 47, 49,51,53,56,75, and 116. -2
- 3. Case 9:11-cv-00072-SEH Document 118 Filed 01/12/12 Page 3 of 3 directed to the current pleadings and shall not incorporate by reference materials appearing in briefs or papers filed in connection with the motions referenced in paragraph 3 above. ~ DATED this K day of January, 2012. United States District Judge -3