BARBER et al v. COIA et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
GLYNN BARBER, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) No. 1:25-cv-00394-RLY-TAB
)
DAVID COIA, JR., et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' second motion for leave to amend [Filing No. 144],
to which Defendants object. [Filing No. 145.] By way of this proposed amendment, Plaintiffs
seek to add five additional entities. [Filing Nos. 157, at ECF p. 2.]
Although the deadline for leave to amend passed on July 28, 2025 [Filing No. 56, at ECF
p. 6], the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established good cause for the proposed amendment and
that Plaintiffs have been diligent in seeking amendment. Any delay in seeking leave to amend is
due, in large part, to the fact that there have been discovery disputes in this case that have
required Court intervention. [Filing No. 140.] Other discovery disputes continue, as reflected in
Plaintiffs' pending motion to compel. [Filing No. 150.] Plaintiffs cite to a variety of discovery-
related troubles that have made it implausible for Plaintiffs' to have sought the amendments at
issue more promptly. [Filing No. 157, at ECF p. 4.]
Any prejudice to Defendants is minimal. The most significant prejudice is that
Defendants have pending motions to dismiss, which will be wiped away by the proposed
amendments. Understandably, this has frustrated Defendants. However, this fact is not
sufficient to deny amendment. As Plaintiffs point out, the proposed amendment does not add
Case 1:25-cv-00394-RLY-TAB Document 161 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
additional legal claims; it only adds additional entities. [Filing Nos. 157, at ECF p. 2.] Any
prejudice to Defendants can be mitigated by allowing the Case Management Plan to be modified,
particularly given that this case is not presently set for trial.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' second motion for leave to amend [Filing No. 144] is
granted. Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint within 7 days of this order. Defendants
shall answer or otherwise respond to this amended complaint within 14 days after it is
filed. Defendants' motions to dismiss [Filing Nos. 81, 88] are denied without prejudice. The
parties shall file a proposed amended CMP within 21 days of this order. The Court hopes the
parties can reach agreement on new CMP dates, but in the event they cannot, the parties shall
submit a proposed CMP with their respective scheduling proposals.
Distribution:
All ECF-registered counsel of record via email
ARTURO SANCHEZ
3231 Manor Ridge
Gainesville, GA 30506
Date: 11/4/2025
_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana
Case 1:25-cv-00394-RLY-TAB Document 161 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>