In litigation, failure to meet a deadline may sometimes be excused if the tardy party can show “good cause” for its untimeliness. In a recent case, Hill v. Abercrombie & Fitch, the plaintiff sought leave to amend its preliminary infringement contentions (PICs), explaining that the infringement theory upon which it was now relying was not previously available. The Court, not surprisingly, inquired as to the nature of this theory. The plaintiff declined to answer, claiming that the information was protected under the “work product doctrine.” Needless to say, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion.
THE LESSON TO BE LEARNED: You shouldn’t expect a happy result when you keep secrets from the judge.