discretion for the lower court to deny plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint when the plaintiffs discovered that they were given the wrong affidavit long after the rule twenty six meeting which established deadlines for amendment and trial and other planets filed a motion to amend shortly correct or so what happened between motion to amend number one and motion to amend if we did about a six week gap or something that's correct your honor we did the second deposition of deputy bull and we were provided the correct af all along we had the incorrect affidavit of probable cause until july twentieth of two thousand and fifteen and a month later we do the second deposition of deputy bull at which he clarifies to us what you know what was the reason good real gave for the nine where was it he said that we were beyond the rule twenty six meeting at the rule twenty six meeting we established deadlines for amendment and trial but he not but the judge never entered those as that particular deadline is in order at least the way i'm reading the docket he entered on july thirty first he enters seriously july thirty first he sets a trial date he sets a pretrial conference date he sets a deadline for exchanging exhibit and witness lists and he says there's no motion cutoff date and it was that i don't see anything in there about a deadline for amending the complaint that i know it was in your agreement in your twenty six f reporter or whatever but was there an order where the judge said there's a deadline of x to amend the complaint i don't believe so your honor he just said that he had been six months from the date that the complaint was filed and that it was too late and he found that there would be prejudice to the defendant s terms of amendment is there a way of drawing a distinction between whether you should have been allowed to amend the ed detective or officer bowl and the other ones well yes your honor recently the reason i asked that question is that the motion the warrant and that's why we wanted to add when you actually get the operations package that you say was the reason for the delay we never received that operations packet from defendants or on all right so that wasn't the production of documents and we just simply never received it from the defendants so then what was the mechanism by which you found out who the other doe's were who had helped execute the warrant them from the witness list provided by defendants in which they prepare you prejudice saying that we'd never that it would be too late to add all these defendants for them to get ready for trial too late for the defense to do what if we had it eight additional ones that it would be too late in the in warrants and the way that they went about the warrants and the way that they went about investigating this matter there were several issues that one of the first ones was deputy bull at his deposition saying that no one reviewed his application for the warrant except for the district attorney secondly deputy bull said that he didn't use google earth even though it was a tool used in his department and the other one is he still he was disciplined for eight hours for the i believe that his statement was that he was disciplined for eight hours because of the mistake in the warrant but there was nothing saying that he was disciplined because of the out like right right li count of summary judgment motion the only allegations in the complaint were that the warrant for was for the wrong house which is not true the warrant was for the correct location that greeted us right correct it was based on the fly over that deputy bowl performed where he unfortunately misidentified the location of where the marijuana was growing it was growing right next door to the ago that the complaint was based on the warrant being issued for the wrong house you were still dealing with the original complaint rate because we do a minute been denied correct your original complaint said there wasn't a warrant because they didn't know at that point they didn't know and what i'm looking at the when the original complaint was filed back in april they knew there was a warrant they allege that there was no warrant for the home correct and that was the complaint you were dealing with when you move for summary judgment because judge real had denied it and i leave to amend actually the complaint alleges a and that executed the warrant on the wrong address right and then paragraph twenty eight says they've never seen it because the warrant it says the warrant has never been produced and may not exist so how can you when you started talking about how you knew you were able to show that the warrant was issued for the wrong address but if but if judge real hadn't even allowed leave to amend why was it even before and it just seems odd to me well the warrant had been ultimately produced in discovery long before the motion for summary judgment was filed ok it's clear the complaint was wrong in its assertions but the and the court was well aware because deputy wells testimony was before the court that he had flown over that he had identified the plate it's all right and that he had obtained a warrant for the plaintiff's address based on his one conversation with the border patrol right correct and it was actually found a couple weeks later true and the judge has never issued any order about what it should be filed so you're basically saying because it was filed two and a half weeks later than we said it should be filed in some time well i think you have to go back you have to start with the fact that in the joint report that was filed prior to the court issuing any scheduling orders they indicated players did that there was no intention to add additional parties which quite frankly to me made no sense at the time it makes no sense to me now specially in light of the allegations of the complaint where the second claim by a limb problem here is that federal procedure does were just naming the dos and troops and the joint report also indicated they had no intention to do so but when the court issued its scheduling order based on that contention it gave them explanation of why it's taken you this long to want to do this especially when the complaint is alleged the way it does why does this mean one of the grounds for for moving to amend under rule fifteen motion the court indicated there was no basis to explain the delay and the second motion basically reiterated the same allegations well usually you  know i think most judges they require some kind of explanation but if you want to take some action after the cutoff date for instance if you want to make a motion after the motion get after you get to give some reasons to why raid troupe right so you know everything about him it's one thing brainless it's one thing to know who they are it's an other to gather all of the evidence necessary to deal with the knowledge of each individual member for the purpose of filing a summ none of that was a discovery cutoff date sure wasn't yes but not the restaurant again this is what the party said stipulated to i can't interpret what the judge didn't rule on but presumably he had all of those in mind discretion by deciding something that's never been decided on the case that's an odd way to do if you tell the usually few chile as you've already alleged something i've already ruled you're changing you can make a difference and i really but he never ruled until this and i gather from from then affidavit that you know he didn't have a clear view didn't he didn't have a clear view because he didn't drive through the back through the street that runs parallel to the back yard i gather there's there's i