Purbeck v. Wilkinson et al, No. 1:2021cv00047 - Document 72 (D. Idaho 2023)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Mr. Coffins and Mr. Pinettes Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and for Leave to Amend Answer (Dkt. 69 ) is GRANTED. The Scheduling Order is hereby amended to permit Mr. Coffin and Mr. Pinette to amend their answer to add a sixth affirmative defense. Mr. Coffin and Mr. Pinette shall file their Amended Answer no later than September 29, 2023. Signed by Judge B Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jd)

Download PDF

Purbeck v. Wilkinson et al Doc. 72 Case 1:21-cv-00047-BLW Document 72 Filed 09/22/23 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ROBERT PURBECK, Case No. 1:21-cv-00047-BLW Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. RODERICK COFFIN III, JAMES PINETTE, and ADA COUNTY, Defendant. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Roderick Coffin III’s and James Pinette’s motion to amend the scheduling order and for leave to file an amended answer (Dkt. 69). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion. BACKGROUND In January 2021, Mr. Purbeck filed this § 1983 action alleging various violations of his constitutional rights relating to the execution of a search warrant at his home in 2019. Complaint, Dkt. 1. The search warrant was executed pursuant to a cybercrime investigation by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia. Motion at 2, Dkt. 69-1. In March 2021, after the MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-00047-BLW Document 72 Filed 09/22/23 Page 2 of 4 filing of this lawsuit, Mr. Purbeck was indicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on several charges related to the cybercrime investigation. Id. In December 2021, Mr. Purbeck filed three motions to suppress and a motion to dismiss in the criminal proceeding. Id. at 3. After an evidentiary hearing, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending the denial of all of Mr. Purbeck’s motions and Mr. Purbeck objected. Id. at 4. In July 2023, the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia issued an order adopting the R&R and overruling Mr. Purbeck’s objections. Id. That order was initially filed under seal but was unsealed on August 2, 2023. Id. Mr. Coffin and Mr. Pinette then filed this motion on August 18, 2023, seeking to amend their answer to include the affirmative defense collateral estoppel based upon the District Court’s findings in the order adopting the R&R. Id. at 9. Mr. Purbeck did not file a response to the motion, so the motion is unopposed. ANALYSIS The deadline set forth in the Scheduling Order for amending the pleadings has passed. Therefore, Rule 16 governs whether Mr. Coffin and Mr. Pinette will be permitted to amend their answer. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b). “A party seeking to amend a MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2 Case 1:21-cv-00047-BLW Document 72 Filed 09/22/23 Page 3 of 4 pleading after the date specified in the scheduling order must first show good cause for amendment under Rule 16, then if good cause be shown, the party must demonstrate that amendment was proper under Rule 15.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608 (internal citations omitted). The “good cause” standard under Rule 16 focuses primarily on the “diligence of the party seeking the amendment” but “a court may also consider the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modifications.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Here, Mr. Coffin and Mr. Pinette did not display a lack of diligence. The deadline to file amended pleadings set by the scheduling order was June 1, 2023, at which point the District Court in Georgia had not issued its order on Mr. Purbeck’s motions. Because the basis for the amendment did not exist prior to the expiration of the deadline to amend pleadings, Mr. Coffin and Mr. Pinette could not have filed the amended pleading before the deadline. Once Mr. Coffin and Mr. Pinette discovered the unsealed order, they filed the present motion within about two weeks. Mr. Purbeck will not suffer any prejudice as a result of the amended answer. Collateral estoppel is a legal defense, so very little, if any, additional discovery is required. To the extent Mr. Purbeck finds additional discovery is necessary, the discovery period has not yet closed and will not close until November 8, 2023. As MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3 Case 1:21-cv-00047-BLW Document 72 Filed 09/22/23 Page 4 of 4 such, the motion to amend the scheduling order and leave to amend is granted. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Mr. Coffin’s and Mr. Pinette’s Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and for Leave to Amend Answer (Dkt. 69) is GRANTED. The Scheduling Order is hereby amended to permit Mr. Coffin and Mr. Pinette to amend their answer to add a sixth affirmative defense. Mr. Coffin and Mr. Pinette shall file their Amended Answer no later than September 29, 2023. DATED: September 22, 2023 D-zt=W B. Lynn Winmill U.S. District Court Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.