Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark recently granted a plaintiff’s motion to strike an amended answer and counterclaim, and awarded the plaintiff costs and expenses associated with presenting the motion. Helios Software, LLC, et al. v. Spectorsoft Corp., C.A. No. 12-081-LPS (D. Del. July 18, 2014). As the Court explained, it had previously granted the defendant leave to file an amended answer to add a counterclaim asserting inequitable conduct. That order allowed the defendant to file an amended answer “in substantially the form it has proposed.” The defendant then filed an amended answer and counterclaim that was “significantly different from the Amended Answer it had proposed to the Court.” The defendant admitted it violated the Court’s order, and asked the Court to modify that order. As Chief Judge Stark explained:
The Court is troubled that Defendant intentionally violated the Court’s Order and then asked the Court to modify its decision instead of seeking the Court’s permission before filing its modified pleading. Defendant could and should have reached out to the Court in the seven-day period that the Court gave Defendant to file its Amended Answer and should have sought leave to file its newly amended pleading. Because Plaintiffs had to bear the unnecessary cost of filing this motion as a result of Defendant’s conduct, the Court will charge Defendant with Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and expenses incurred in presenting this motion.
The Court granted the defendant leave to file an amended version of its amended answer and counterclaim, however, in a form that mostly removed the plaintiff’s highly confidential and privileged information contained in its stricken pleading.