## Facts

- Michael Ellis Chalick suffered injuries in a parachuting accident on May 30, 1997, was treated at Cooper Hospital–University Medical Center, and died on May 31, 1997.
- Conrad Chalick, individually and as administrator of his son’s estate, filed a federal diversity action alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death.
- The complaint named Cooper Hospital–University Medical Center, University Radiology Services, P.A., and four physicians (the “doctor defendants”).
- The complaint also named fictitious defendants (John Does 1–50 and Jane Does 1–50) described as unknown doctors, nurses, and other personnel involved in the decedent’s care.
- The action was filed on or about March 9, 1999, within the applicable limitations period.
- In June 1999, defendants served Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures listing Richard Burns, M.D., as an individual likely to have discoverable information.
- The Rule 26(a) disclosures did not provide Dr. Burns’ address or telephone number and did not identify the subject matter of his information.
- In December 1999, deposition testimony from one of the doctor defendants led plaintiff to believe Dr. Burns’ conduct supported a direct malpractice claim against him.
- On December 27, 1999—after the limitations period for a claim against Dr. Burns had run—plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to substitute Dr. Burns for one of the John Doe defendants and sought relation back under Rule 15(c).
- Defendants opposed the amendment, arguing the claim against Dr. Burns was time-barred because Rule 15(c) was not satisfied, particularly as to notice and knowledge.

## Issues

1. Whether an amendment filed after the statute of limitations, substituting Richard Burns, M.D., for a fictitious “John Doe” defendant, relates back to the original complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c).
2. Whether defendants’ failure to provide complete Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures regarding Dr. Burns precluded them from arguing that Dr. Burns lacked the notice and knowledge required for relation back.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiff’s motion to amend to add Dr. Burns as a defendant.
- The court held the amendment related back under Rule 15(c) to the date of the timely original complaint.
- The court concluded defendants’ Rule 26(a)(1) noncompliance barred them from opposing relation back on the ground that Dr. Burns lacked timely notice of the action or lacked knowledge that he would have been named but for a mistake.
- The court treated the loss of the limitations defense in this context as a consequence of the disclosure failure, consistent with the enforcement mechanisms contemplated by the federal discovery rules.

## Legal Principles

- Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c), an amendment changing or adding a party relates back when (1) the claim arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the original pleading, and (2) within the Rule 4(m) period the party to be added received notice of the action such that it will not be prejudiced, and knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) requires parties, without awaiting discovery requests, to identify individuals likely to have discoverable information and, if known, provide their contact information and the subjects of the information.
- When a party fails to provide required Rule 26(a) information, Rule 37(c)(1) authorizes consequences for that failure; a party may be prevented from benefitting from non-disclosure to defeat an amendment that would otherwise relate back.
- Use of John Doe and Jane Doe defendants for unknown medical personnel can support later substitution once the person’s identity and role become known, particularly where the plaintiff acts quickly after learning the facts and where notice/knowledge elements are satisfied (or cannot fairly be contested due to discovery violations).
- Courts may preclude arguments that an added defendant lacked notice or knowledge for Rule 15(c) purposes when the opposing party’s deficient initial disclosures materially contributed to the plaintiff’s inability to name the defendant within the limitations period.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Chalick to amend his malpractice and wrongful-death complaint to add Dr. Richard Burns after the limitations period because defendants’ incomplete Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures prevented them from contesting the Rule 15(c) notice and knowledge requirements, so the amendment related back to the timely original pleading.


Chalick v. Cooper Hospital, et al., 192 F.R.D. 145 (2000)