## Facts

- Current and former CIA employees brought an uncertified multi-plaintiff action against the CIA, the Director of Central Intelligence, and unnamed officials.
- The operative pleadings asserted Privacy Act violations and constitutional claims tied to alleged interference with employees’ ability to obtain counsel; later amendments also asserted Title VII violations.
- Plaintiffs alleged that, beginning in 1997, the CIA maintained a policy and practice that prevented employees from sharing or disclosing certain employment-related documents and personnel records to their attorneys.
- Plaintiffs alleged that these restrictions effectively denied assistance of counsel and were connected to alleged mishandling of personnel files, including placement of incorrect or unwarranted material in employee records.
- One plaintiff alleged a letter of reprimand placed in her personnel file in April 1997 concerning responsibility for loss of classified information.
- After partial disposition of an earlier motion to dismiss, plaintiffs moved under Rule 15 to file a proposed second amended complaint expanding factual allegations and adding nine additional plaintiffs (fifteen total).
- Defendants moved under Rule 21 (and related joinder and trial-management rules) to sever the claims of the original plaintiffs, arguing the claims were factually diverse and burdensome to defend together.
- Discovery had not yet begun when the court considered the motions.

## Issues

1. Whether leave to amend should be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) to file a second amended complaint adding plaintiffs and expanded allegations.
2. Whether the existing plaintiffs’ claims should be severed under Rules 20 and 21 (and related trial-management provisions) because they allegedly lacked a sufficient transactional connection and would unduly burden defendants.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ Rule 15 motion for leave to amend and permitted filing of the proposed second amended complaint.
- The court denied defendants’ motion to sever.
- The court found no undue delay, undue prejudice, or other sufficient reason to deny amendment, particularly given the pre-discovery posture and lack of concrete prejudice.
- The court found permissive joinder proper because plaintiffs’ claims were logically related through an alleged common CIA policy and practice affecting access to counsel and handling of personnel records.

## Legal Principles

- Leave to amend under Rule 15(a) should be freely given when justice so requires; denial generally requires a showing such as undue delay, undue prejudice, or futility.
- Generalized assertions of burden or complexity are insufficient to show undue prejudice from amendment; the opponent must identify specific, material prejudice.
- Permissive joinder under Rule 20(a) requires claims arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and at least one common question of law or fact.
- The Rule 20 transactional requirement may be satisfied where claims are logically related and tied to a common policy or practice, even if individual employment events differ.
- Severance under Rule 21 is discretionary and turns on whether severance would be just; it is not warranted based only on factual variety absent a concrete showing of unfair burden or manageability problems.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the employees to expand their case through a second amended complaint and kept the plaintiffs joined in one action, holding that liberal amendment standards applied and that the claims were sufficiently connected by alleged agency-wide practices to defeat severance.


M.K. v. Tenet, 216 F.R.D. 133 (D.D.C. 2002)