Opinion ID: 4090094
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Chatham’s Three Other Motions

Text: With the challenge to the summary-judgment order out of the way, we proceed to the other orders Chatham asks us to review.
Two months after the deadline for amending the pleadings expired, Chatham moved for leave to file a third amended complaint to add nursing-negligence and wrongful-death claims against Nurse Reuter and Dr. Larson. The magistrate judge denied the motion because Chatham didn’t provide a reasonable explanation for her delay and the latestage amendment would have caused undue prejudice to Reuter and Larson. We review the denial of a motion to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. Pugh v. Tribune Co., 521 F.3d 686, 698 (7th Cir. 2008). A plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of course, but subsequent amendments require either the consent of an opposing party or the court’s leave. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). While a judge should “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires,” RULE 15(a)(2), refusal to allow an amendment is appropriate where, as here, a plaintiff has unjustifiably delayed or when an opposNo. 14-3318 11 ing party would suffer undue prejudice, Barry Aviation Inc. v. Land O'Lakes Mun. Airport Comm'n, 377 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2004). Chatham asserts that the magistrate judge abused his discretion but she does not explain how. She argues only that her proposed new state-law claims were factually related to the § 1983 claims, so little additional discovery would be required. The magistrate judge reasonably rejected that argument and found the delay both unexcused and prejudicial. Chatham has given us no good reason to disturb that ruling, and we see none ourselves.
During discovery, Wexford was late in disclosing its nursing treatment protocols relating to asthma. Chatham moved to sanction Wexford for this error, but the magistrate judge denied the motion after determining that the tardy disclosure was not made for tactical advantage and was not prejudicial. We review this decision too for abuse of discretion. Park v. City of Chicago, 297 F.3d 606, 614 (7th Cir. 2002) (“A trial court has broad discretion concerning the imposition of discovery sanctions.”). Little discussion is needed. Chatham hasn’t pointed to any evidence of bad faith and doesn’t explain how the delayed disclosure could possibly have prejudiced her. We find no abuse of discretion.
After the jury returned its verdict in favor of Dr. Larson, Nurse Reuter, and the prison guards, Chatham moved for a new trial. The magistrate judge denied the motion, and 12 No. 14-3318 again our review is for abuse of discretion. See Kapelanski v. Johnson, 390 F.3d 525, 530 (7th Cir. 2004). Chatham argues that a new trial is warranted because the magistrate judge improperly limited the testimony of her expert witness. She claims that her experts were required to closely hew to their expert reports during their testimony, while the defendants’ experts were allowed to “deviate substantially from their reports” and to “opine at will on the standard of care.” This claim of unequal treatment is simply not borne out by the record. The judge’s pretrial order equally—and explicitly—limited both sides’ expert testimony to matters covered in the experts’ reports. Chatham hasn’t identified any particular testimony from the defense experts that should have been excluded, nor has she sufficiently explained what her experts were unfairly precluded from saying. There’s no basis in the record to conclude that the limits on expert testimony were unevenly enforced. Chatham also argues that the magistrate judge improper- ly admitted evidence of McDonald’s arrest history in violation of Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Character evidence of this sort is usually inadmissible. See FED. R. EVID. 404(a)(1). But part of Chatham’s claim for damages relied on the lost relationship between McDonald and his son. Attaching a value to this loss required proving “the quality of advice and support that [McDonald] could have supplied” to his child, thus putting McDonald’s character squarely at issue. Cobige v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 780, 785 (7th Cir. 2011). No. 14-3318 13 Of course relevant evidence may still be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by … unfair prejudice.” FED. R. EVID. 403. Chatham argues that this evidence flunks the Rule 403 balancing test because McDonald’s arrests occurred before his son was born. The magistrate judge was entitled to see things differently and strike the balance accordingly. But even if we agreed that an evidentiary error occurred, the judge was well within his discretion to refuse to grant a new trial in the face of this claim of error. See Shick v. Ill. Dep’t of Human Servs., 307 F.3d 605, 611 (7th Cir. 2002) (“A new trial may be granted in the event of an error in the admission of evidence in extraordinary situations.”). McDonald’s arrest history was admitted on the question of damages, but the jury returned a noliability verdict and never reached that question. Chatham’s motion for a new trial was properly denied. AFFIRMED.