Calendar Research LLC v. StubHub, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to File Amended Answer 243

C.D. Cal.February 4, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP John M. Pierce (SBN 250443) jpierce@piercebainbridge.com 600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Los Angeles, California 90017-3212 (213) 262-9333 Douglas S. Curran (pro hac vice) dcurran@piercebainbridge.com Conor McDonough (pro hac vice) cmcdonough@piercebainbridge.com Adam C. Ludemann (pro hac vice) aludemann@piercebainbridge.com 20 West 23rd St., 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 (212) 484-9866 Attorneys for Plaintiff Calendar Research LLC THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Calendar Research LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. Michael Hunter Gray, an individual; StubHub, Inc., a Delaware corporation; eBay Inc., a Delaware corporation; Lisa Dusseault, an individual; Lasha Efremidze, an individual; and Does 5 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:17–cv–04062–SVW–SS Hon. Stephen V. Wilson Calendar Research LLC’s Opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer Date: February 25, 2019 Time: 1:30 p.m. Crtrm: 10A Case 2:17-cv-04062-SVW-SS Document 250 Filed 02/04/19 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:9387 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – i – Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 1 III. ARGUMENT...................................................................................... 5 Leave to Amend Should be Denied based on Dusseault’s Undue Delay ............................................................................. 6 Dusseault’s Proposed Amendment is Futile ............................ 7 Dusseault’s Delayed Amendment Prejudices Plaintiff ............ 9 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 10 Case 2:17-cv-04062-SVW-SS Document 250 Filed 02/04/19 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:9388 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – ii – Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists, 781 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 816 (1986) ............... 6, 7 Alzheimer’s Inst. of Am. v. Elan Corp. PLC, 274 F.R.D. 272 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ...................................................................... 6 In re Circuit Breaker Litig., 175 F.R.D. 547 (C.D. Cal. 1997) ................................................................... 5, 7 Cummings v. Valley Health Sys.,LLC, No. 2:16-cv-02486-JCM-GWF, 2017 WL 777182 (D. Nev. Feb. 28, 2017) ............................................................................................................ 9 Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1990) ........................................................................... 6 Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) ......................................................................... 6, 7 Roberts v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 661 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1981) ............................................................................. 9 Saul v. U.S., 928 F.2d 829 (9th Cir.1991) .......................................................................... 7, 9 Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1991) ............................................................................. 6 Statutes Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) ............................................................................................... 5 Case 2:17-cv-04062-SVW-SS Document 250 Filed 02/04/19 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #:9389 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 1 – Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer I . I N T R O D U C T I O N Plaintiff Calendar Research, LLC (“Plaintiff”) respectfully submits this opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s (“Dusseault”) motion for leave to amend her answer. Ms. Dusseault claims to have learned of the purported facts underlying her motion during the Deposition of Plaintiff’s 30(b)(6) designee Mark Kolokotrones (“Kolokotrones”) on December 21, 2018, however the specific testimony she relies on relates to issues that have been front and center in each of Plaintiff’s complaints in this Action. The purported facts she cites (and implies) in her motion are also directly refuted by sworn testimony from Defendant Michael Hunter Gray (“Gray”) submitted in this action, as well as sworn testimony by Mr. Kolokotrones and additional deposition testimony from Mr. Kolokotrones which Ms. Dusseault has conveniently ignored. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court deny Ms. Dusseault’s motion on three independent grounds: (i) that her motion to amend has been unduly delayed; (ii) that amendment of her answer would be futile; and (iii) that amendment of Ms. Dusseault’s complaint following the close of discovery would cause significant prejudice to Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). I I . B A C K G R O U N D Plaintiff commenced this action in November 2015 by filing suit in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. See Ludemann Decl. Ex. A (“Complaint”). Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that it had purchased, as an assignee from Knight and Bishop, L.P., the full assets of Calaborate, Inc. (“Calaborate”). See Ludemann Decl. Ex. A, Complaint ¶ 2. It alleged further that Defendant Michael Hunter Gray (“Gray”), the former CEO of Calaborate, along with Ms. Dusseault (a former Vice President at Calaborate) and Lasha Efremidze (“Efremidze”) (a former software developer at Calaborate) had Case 2:17-cv-04062-SVW-SS Document 250 Filed 02/04/19 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #:9390 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 2 – Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer improperly withheld, retained, or converted certain property of Calaborate to which Plaintiff was lawfully entitled. See id. ¶¶ 3-4. Plaintiff alleged that the property wrongfully withheld included certain software key codes associated with an application developed by Calaborate known as Klutch. See id ¶ 34. In March 2017, Plaintiff filed an application for writ of possession seeking recovery from Gray of a private Google key that Calendar Research needed to update the Android version of the Klutch application (the “Android Key”). See Ludemann Decl. Ex. B (“Writ of Possession”). Plaintiff’s Writ of Possession asserted that in June 2015, Gray represented to Calendar Research that he would provide it access to a Dropbox account that contained the Android Key and other sensitive documents belonging to Calaborate, but instead, Gray provided Calendar Research with access to a sham Dropbox account that was created the day before, which did not contain the private key. See Ex. B, Writ of Possession at 2, n. 1. Gray submitted a declaration in opposition to Plaintiff’s Writ of Possession, dated May 23, 2017, which stated in pertinent part, under oath, that the Android Key was “used exclusively by [Calaborate’s] Android developer . . . Steven Orens.” Ludemann Decl. Ex. C, at ¶ 14. Gray declared further that he was informed by Steven Orens that the Android Key was located in a Calaborate Dropbox account purportedly transferred by Gray to Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 14. In May 2017, Plaintiff filed a proposed Third Amended Complaint (“3AC”) in the Los Angeles Superior Court. See Ludemann Decl. ¶ 4. The action was subsequently removed to this Court. On May 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed its 3AC, naming Dusseault as a defendant. See 3AC, ECF No. 1-5. The 3AC alleged in pertinent part: Case 2:17-cv-04062-SVW-SS Document 250 Filed 02/04/19 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:9391 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 3 – Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer By transferring a fake Dropbox account and withholding the original account, Defendants prevented Calendar Research from ever updating the Android version of the Klutch application. Google Play, the Android application platform, requires that every application have a certificate and a private key. Application developers use private keys to “sign” their applications, and roll out updated versions of the applications. As the Android web site explains to application developers: “Your private key is required for signing all future versions of your app. If you lose or misplace your key, you will not be able to publish updates to your existing app. You cannot regenerate a previously generated key.” (emphasis added). Calaborate stored the private key on Dropbox, and Calaborate employees referenced the private key’s location in Dropbox on other Calaborate platforms, such as Slack and GitHub. But Gray, Dusseault, and Efremidze never transferred the original Dropbox account— or the private key. Thus, Calendar Research could never release an updated version of the Klutch application. Since the Klutch application could not be updated, and since its viability depended upon having an iOS and an Android version, the Klutch application was made obsolete. All of the goodwill and brand recognition of the Klutch name was destroyed, damaging Calendar Research. 3AC, ECF No. 1-5, ¶ 63. On August 30, 2017, after Plaintiff eventually recovered the Android Key, Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint (“4AC”). Plaintiff’s 4AC repeated verbatim the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 of the 3AC. See 4AC, ECF No. 57, ¶ 63. The 4AC also alleged: Approximately one month after Gray filed his [May 23, 2017] declaration, and after this action was removed to federal court (thus taking the application for writ of possession off calendar), Gray changed his story yet again, further belying his previous assertion that he did not have possession, custody, or control of the Google private key. Specifically, Gray’s counsel informed Calendar Research that Gray finally had located the Google private key, which was in possession of a former Calaborate employee now residing in Nicaragua. Accordingly, in August 2017, Calendar Research was finally able to receive the Google Case 2:17-cv-04062-SVW-SS Document 250 Filed 02/04/19 Page 6 of 14 Page ID #:9392 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 4 – Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer private key after retrieving it from the former Calaborate employee in Nicaragua. The damage done to the Klutch application in the more than two intervening years since Calendar Research demanded Gray return the Google private key, however, was by that time irreversible. 4AC, ECF No. 57, ¶ 64. On October 4, 2018, the Court entered an Order authorizing discovery on Plaintiff’s CFAA and DTSA claims following Plaintiff’s filing of a Fifth Amended Complaint (“5AC”). ECF No. 175. The Court’s October 4, 2018 Order established a January 11, 2019 discovery deadline and a February 1, 2019 deadline for any party to move for summary judgment in connection with Plaintiff’s DTSA and CFAA claims. Id. Plaintiff filed its 5AC on October 15, 2018. See 5AC, ECF No. 181. Plaintiff’s 5AC included the identical allegations found in Paragraph 63 of the 3AC and 4AC, as well as the identical allegations found in Paragraph 64 of the 4AC. See 5AC, ECF No. 181, ¶¶ 63-64. On October 29, 2018, Defendants StubHub, Inc. (“StubHub”), eBay Inc. (“eBay”), Gray, Efremidze and Dusseault filed answers to the 5AC. ECF. Nos. 184-186. Defendants StubHub, eBay, Gray and Efremidze each interposed boilerplate affirmative defenses of unclean hands and failure to mitigate damages. See ECF Nos. 184, 185; see also Dusseault Br. at 3. For her part, Dusseault, who filed her answer after the remaining defendants, elected to omit any affirmative defenses. See ECF No. 186; see also Dusseault Br. at 3.1 On January 12, 2019, the first day after the close of discovery, counsel for Ms. Dusseault emailed Plaintiff’s counsel requesting a stipulation to allow Dusseault to amend her answer to assert affirmative defenses for failure to 1 References herein to “Dusseault Br.” refer to Dusseault’s January 25, 2019 motion for leave to amend. See ECF No. 243. Case 2:17-cv-04062-SVW-SS Document 250 Filed 02/04/19 Page 7 of 14 Page ID #:9393 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 5 – Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer mitigate damages and unclean hands, “in light of the deposition testimony provided by [Mark Kolokotrones] and [Plaintiff’s] expert witnesses.” Ludemann Decl. ¶ 5; Ludemann Decl. Ex. 5. Counsel for Ms. Dusseault asserted in that email that she sought to amend her answer “based on the conduct of the [P]laintiff or its predecessor in interest that could not reasonably have been known to Ms. Dusseault prior to discovery in this phase.” Id. On January 15, 2019, counsel for Plaintiff met and conferred regarding Dusseault’s proposed amendment. Ludemann Decl. ¶ 6. During that meet and confer, counsel for Ms. Dusseault asserted that Ms. Dusseault had been unaware of Plaintiff’s unsuccessful attempts to locate the missing Android Key until the deposition of Mark Kolokotrones on December 21, 2018. Id. On January 16, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel informed counsel for Ms. Dusseault that Plaintiff was unwilling to stipulate to Ms. Dusseault’s proposed amendment. Id. Dusseault then waited 11 days to move for leave to amend her answer, filing the instant motion on January 25, 2019, and setting a hearing date requiring Plaintiff to oppose the motion simultaneously with any motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants on February 1, 2019, pursuant to the Court’s October 4, 2018 Order. Id. ¶ 7. I I I . A R G U M E N T Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to amend a pleading more than 21 days after service “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Leave to amend is “by no means automatic.” In re Circuit Breaker Litig., 175 F.R.D. 547, 550 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962)). In determining whether to allow leave to amend, courts consider: (1) any bad faith/dilatory motive of the moving party; (2) any prejudice to the opposing Case 2:17-cv-04062-SVW-SS Document 250 Filed 02/04/19 Page 8 of 14 Page ID #:9394 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 6 – Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer party; (3) undue delay; and (4) the futility of the proposed amendment. See Alzheimer’s Inst. of Am. v. Elan Corp. PLC, 274 F.R.D. 272, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (citing Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990)). Leave to Amend Should be Denied based on Dusseault’s Undue Delay The Ninth Circuit has held that undue delay alone is a sufficient basis to deny amendment of a pleading. See Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (denying leave to amend where facts underlying proposed amendment were known to moving party for one year); Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1990) (delay of eight months to amend pleading after new facts known to mobbing party was “inexplicable and unjustified”.) Moreover, “late amendments to assert new theories are not reviewed favorably when the facts and the theory have been known to the party seeking amendment since the inception of the cause of action.” Acri v. Int’l Ass'n of Machinists, 781 F.2d 1393, 1398 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 816 (1986); see also Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, Ms. Dusseault claims to have been unaware of the efforts of Mark Kolokotrones, the principal of Calendar research, to recover the Android Key until the deposition of Mr Kolokotrones on December 21, 2018. Dusseault Br. at 4-5; see also Ludemann Ex. D. This assertion is highly implausible, given that: (i) the turnover of such private keys has been a critical issue in this case since Plaintiff first filed its Complaint in this action, in November 2015, see Ludemann Decl. Ex. A; (ii) Plaintiff filed a Writ of Possession in this action seeking turnover of the Android Key in March 2017, see Ludemann Decl. Ex. B; (iii) Plaintiff filed the 3AC naming Dusseault as a defendant in May of 2017, specifically alleging that Plaintiff had been unable to locate the Case 2:17-cv-04062-SVW-SS Document 250 Filed 02/04/19 Page 9 of 14 Page ID #:9395 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 7 – Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer Android Key up to that point, see ECF No. 1-5; (iv) when Gray did ultimately locate the Google key at issue, in August 2017, Plaintiff filed a 4AC the very same month, alleging the same, and describing the circumstances under which the Android Key was recovered, see ECF No. 57; and (v) Plaintiff’s 5AC filed in October of 2018 also alleges that the Android Key was not recovered until August 2017, and again alleges its manner of recovery, see ECF No. 181. It therefore beggars belief to suggest that Ms. Dusseault was somehow unaware of Plaintiff’s efforts to locate the Android Key until December of 2018, particularly given that the former Calaborate employee from whom the Android Key was eventually recovered was, along with individual defendants, employed as a contractor by StubHub subsequent to his employment by Calaborate. See Ludemann Decl. ¶ 8. Accordingly, because Ms. Dusseault has been aware of the facts underlying her motion for leave to amend since at least the time she was named as defendant in this action, in May of 2017, her motion should be denied on that independent basis. See Acri, 781 F.2d at 1398; Kaplan, 49 F.3d at 1370. Dusseault’s Proposed Amendment is Futile The Ninth Circuit has held that courts may deny a request for leave to amend where the amendment would be futile, or where the amended pleading would be subject to dismissal. See Saul v. U.S., 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). A proposed amendment is “futile” if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment that would constitute a valid claim or defense.” In re Circuit Breaker Litig., 175 F.R.D. at 551. Here, Ms. Dusseault has selectively excerpted Mr. Kolokotrones’s deposition testimony, asserting that he “made statements establishing a complete failure to take efforts to prevent harm to [Calendar Research].” Case 2:17-cv-04062-SVW-SS Document 250 Filed 02/04/19 Page 10 of 14 Page ID #:9396 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 8 – Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer Dusseault Br. at 1. She asserts this “complete failure” based on Mr. Kolokotrones’s testimony to the effect that it is possible he may not have contacted Jose Ayerdis, the contractor from whom the Android Key was eventually recovered, before 2017. Dusseault Br. at 4-5. Implicit in this theory is that Mr. Kolokotrones should have known or had reason to know that Mr. Ayerdis had possession of the Android Key. That assumption, however, is directly refuted by sworn statements made by Defendant Gray in this action and is also inconsistent with portions of Mr. Kolokotrones’s deposition testimony which have conveniently been omitted by Ms. Dusseault in support of her motion. More specifically, in a sworn declaration filed in May 2017, Gray declared that former Calaborate engineer Steve Orens exclusively used the Android Key, and that in any case he believed it had already been turned over to Plaintiff. See Ludemann Decl. Ex. C Understandably then, Mr. Kolokotrones testified that he had no reason to suspect Mr. Ayerdis of withholding Calaborate property or engaging in any wrongdoing. See Kolokotrones Dep. at 162-65, Ludemann Decl. Ex. E. Ms. Dusseault’s characterization of a “complete failure” by Plaintiff to recover the Android Key is also at odds with the significant time, expense and effort expended by Plaintiff attempting to locate the Android Key, which is described in detail in the Declaration of Mark Kolokotrones submitted in support of Plaintiff’s application for a Writ of Possession. See Ludemann Decl. Ex. B; see also Kolokotrones Dep. at 320-21, Naim Decl. Ex. 1. Ms. Dusseault’s theory also ignores that as the former CEO of Calaborate and the signatory to a transfer agreement governing the turnover of Calaborate’s property following its sale and assignment to Plaintiff, Defendant Gray was ultimately responsible for locating and turning over all Calaborate property Case 2:17-cv-04062-SVW-SS Document 250 Filed 02/04/19 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #:9397 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 9 – Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer pursuant to that transfer agreement, including the Android Key. See ECF No. 181-1. Accordingly, even if Ms. Dusseault’s proposed amendments were not unduly delayed, her proposed amendments are futile and should be denied. See Saul, 928 F.2d at 843. Dusseault’s Delayed Amendment Prejudices Plaintiff A party may establish prejudice when an opposing party seeks amendment of a pleading late in the case, after significant discovery has been completed and when a motion for summary judgment is pending. See Roberts v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 661 F.2d 796, 797 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming finding of prejudice by District Court where party moved to amend pleading following the close of discovery and after commencement of summary judgment briefing). Here, Ms. Dusseault moves to amend her answer after the close of the discovery period, over a month following the date of the deposition during which she purportedly first learned of the facts underlying her amendment, and almost two weeks after being informed that Plaintiff would not consent to amendment. See Ludemann Decl. ¶¶ 5-7. She also moved to amend her answer only two days following her request to meet and confer with counsel for Plaintiff regarding an anticipated summary judgment filing on February 1, 2019.2 See id. Contrary to Dusseault’s assertions, Plaintiff would be substantially prejudiced should the Court allow leave to amend. Ms. Dusseault asserts that Plaintiff would not suffer prejudice on account of her proposed amendment, following the close of the discovery period, because the remaining defendants 2 The timing of Ms. Dussealt’s motion also suggests the possibility of dila- tory motive. See Cummings v. Valley Health Sys., LLC, No. 2:16-cv-02486- JCM-GWF, 2017 WL 777182, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 28, 2017) (party’s dila- tory motives favored denying motion for leave to amend pleading). Case 2:17-cv-04062-SVW-SS Document 250 Filed 02/04/19 Page 12 of 14 Page ID #:9398 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 10 – Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer asserted the same defenses in their respective answers. Dusseault Br. at 6-7. But the generic, boilerplate defenses interposed by the remaining defendants give no indication that those defenses either (i) relate to Plaintiff’s DTSA and CFAA claims or (ii) are based on the same set of facts asserted by Ms. Dusseault in her motion for leave to amend. Dusseault Br. at 3. Ms. Dusseault also asserts that “[t]he information relevant to [her amendments are] wholly in the possession of Plaintiff, making discovery irrelevant.” Dusseault Br. at 1. This could not be further from the truth. As outlined above, there are numerous individuals from whom relevant discovery would be required by Plaintiff in order to address Ms. Dusseault’s proposed amendment, including, without limitation: (i) Ms. Dusseault herself, as the former lead engineer at Calaborate; (ii) Defendant Gray; (iii) Steve Orens; and (iv) Jose Ayerdis. By raising her proposed amendment subsequent to the close of the discovery period, Ms. Dusseault has denied Plaintiff the opportunity for full and fair discovery on her proposed amendments. Ms. Dusseault’s proposed amendments should be denied on this additional, independent basis.3 IV . C O N C L U S I O N For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Ms. Dusseault’s motion for leave to amend her answer be denied. 3 Should the Court grant Ms. Dusseault leave to amend her answer, Plaintiff respectfully requests that it be granted reasonable time to reopen discovery on Ms. Dusseault’s proposed affirmative defenses. Case 2:17-cv-04062-SVW-SS Document 250 Filed 02/04/19 Page 13 of 14 Page ID #:9399 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 11 – Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lisa Dusseault’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer Dated: February 4, 2019 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Conor B. McDonough Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP John M. Pierce (SBN 250443) jpierce@piercebainbridge.com 600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 262-9333 Douglas S. Curran (pro hac vice) dcurran@piercebainbridge.com Conor B. McDonough (pro hac vice) cmcdonough@piercebainbridge.com Adam C. Ludemann (pro hac vice) aludemann@piercebainbridge.com 20 West 23rd St., 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 (212) 484-9866 Counsel for Plaintiff Calendar Research LLC Case 2:17-cv-04062-SVW-SS Document 250 Filed 02/04/19 Page 14 of 14 Page ID #:9400