K. C., et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF ATHERTON (2025)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs K.C. and D.B. seek leave to file a third amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 66.) For the reasons explained below, Plaintiffs' timely request for leave to amend is GRANTED. This ruling assumes the reader is familiar with the facts, the applicable legal standards, and the arguments made by the parties.

On February 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enlarge time to file amended pleadings to April 22, 2025. (Dkt. No. 57.) In that motion, Plaintiffs explained that they were seeking to identify the individual who had disclosed K.C.'s confidential school records to Defendant Atherton Police Department (“Police Department”). (Id. at 4-5.) Separately, Plaintiffs sought leave to file a third amended complaint with new allegations regarding alleged misconduct by Defendant Stephen Emmi and a claim against Sequoia Union High School District (the “District”) for negligent supervision and training. (Dkt. No. 56; Dkt. No. 56-2 at 13, 24-25.) Both of Plaintiffs' unopposed motions were granted. (Dkt. No. 62.)

On April 22, 2025, Plaintiffs again sought leave to file a third amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 66.) The April 22 proposed third amended complaint includes the same allegations as the February 21 proposed third amended complaint, and adds an unlawful search and seizure claim against Emmi for allegedly disclosing K.C.'s student records to the Police Department. (Dkt. No. 66; Dkt. No. 66-2 at 14, 16.) On reply, Plaintiffs explained that, despite their sustained efforts to discover the identity of the person who had disclosed K.C.'s student records, “Plaintiffs' counsel's investigation has only recently revealed that the individual was Defendant Emmi.” (Dkt. No. 68 at 3.)

Where leave to amend is timely sought before the deadline to amend pleadings has passed, Rule 15 advises that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see also Gilbert v. Castrejon, No. 22-cv-00319, 2023 WL 2189403, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2023) (“Since the motion was filed before the expiration of any deadline to amend, Rule 15(a) governs and leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.”). Bearing in mind that “this policy is to be applied with extreme liberality,” the following factors are considered: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; and (4) futility. Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). Each of the factors weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs' motion.

There is no evidence of bad faith of undue delay. Plaintiffs assert that they diligently sought to uncover the identity of the person who disclosed K.C.'s student records, a topic on which the District Defendants had denied knowledge in their interrogatory responses. Plaintiffs further state that they sought leave to amend promptly upon discovery of the necessary information via their independent investigation. Defendants do not submit contrary evidence as to how Plaintiffs should have deduced this information earlier. Furthermore, Plaintiffs' proposed amendments should come as no surprise to Defendants, as Plaintiffs disclosed their intentions to Defendants and to the Court in February. (See Dkt. No. 57.) Given Plaintiffs' transparency, and the fact that discovery does not close until November 21, 2025 (Dkt. No. 48), the record does not show that Defendants will be prejudiced by the proposed amendments. Finally, there is no basis to conclude that amendment is futile.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file the proposed third amended complaint attached as Exhibit A to their Motion (Dkt. No. 66-2) on the docket by June 16, 2025. If the parties believe an extension of the case deadlines is necessary to address the amended pleadings, they should promptly meet and confer and, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6, propose a modified schedule by stipulation or administrative motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RITA F. LIN United States District Judge