HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014848.jpg

Case 9:0&aé807E5-d0A07 4 oR nile etinteniteréd-49 FES@ DGCkét104/P7dge1S ofPidge 2 of 10 On December 30, 2014, two other unnamed victims, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, moved to join as petitioners in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (DE 280). Petitioners (Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2) support the Rule 21 Motion. (Id. at 11). Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 argue that they “have suffered the same violations of their rights under the [CVRA] as the” Petitioners, and they “desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights as well.” (Id. at 1). The Government vehemently opposes joinder under Rule 21. (DE 290). The Government argues that Rule 15 is the proper procedural device for adding parties to an action, not Rule 21. (id. at 1). “TOJut of an abundance of caution,” Petitioners filed a motion to amend their petition under Rule 15, conforming the petition to the evidence and adding Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 as petitioners. (DE 311 at 2). The Government opposes the Rule 15 Motion as well. (DE 314). Among other things, the Government argues that amending the petition to include Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 should be denied because of their undue delay in seeking to join the proceedings, and the undue prejudice that amendment will cause. (Id.). After considering the parties’ submissions and the proposed amended petition, the Court finds that justice does not require amendment in this instance and exercises its discretion to deny the amendment. II. Discussion “The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is within the sole discretion of the district court.” Laurie v. Ala. Ct. Crim. Apps., 256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Justice does not require amendment in several instances, “includ[ing] undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014848