The motion court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave. Defendant failed to explain why it waited until the brink of the discovery deadline to file its motion, and why it did not move by order to show cause or otherwise timely convey the "emergency" that arose when it realized that plaintiffs' belated document production contained previously unknown admissions that formed the basis for the counterclaims. While defendant claims that it acted as soon as possible after receiving the 100,000-plus documents, the motion court reasonably concluded that defendant could have avoided the last-minute nature of the document production, noting that defendant did not move to compel more prompt production of the documents, which it admits it had sought since February 2018. Moreover, defendant's June 2019 letter to the court primarily addresses plaintiff's failure to produce discovery substantiating its own damages claims, rather than the documents that it now claims support the proposed counterclaims.
Further, defendant's proposed new allegations - against plaintiff and two new defendants as well as other potentially relevant individuals implicated by the allegations - will inevitably entail substantial discovery and resulting delays. While CPLR 3025(b) motions may be granted at any time during the pendency of an action, defendant's explanation for the timing of its motion, combined with the scope of the proposed amendments, fails to show that the court, which anticipated not being able to try the case until 2021, was not reasonably concerned about the delay the new issues would generate.
Ness Tech. SARL v. Pactera Tech. Intl. Ltd., NY Slip Op 01310 (1st Dep't February 25, 2020)
Here is the decision.
