MEMORANDUM & ORDER Before the Court are: (1) Defendant William Stilphen (“Stilphen”)’s motion to dismiss the supposed negligent entrustment claim against him or, in the alternative, his motion for summary judgment as to the same claim; (2) Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a negligent entrustment cause of action if the Court grants Stilphen’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment; and (3) Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the deposition testimony of non-party witness Thomas Folker. For the reasons stated below, the parties’ motions are denied.DEFENDANT STILPHEN’S MOTION TO DISMISS NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CLAIMThe Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts in this case and thus recites them only to the extent relevant to the Court’s analysis.On November 2, 2017, the Court held a pretrial conference with the parties. Plaintiffs informed the Court, for the first time, that they intended to prove a claim of negligent entrustment as to Defendant Stilphen. Defendants argued that no such claim had ever been pled, and even if it had, that it would fail under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In light of Plaintiffs’ contention that defense counsel had known of Plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment theory for some time, but doubting that the claim had ever been formally pled, the Court instructed defense counsel, inter alia, to “advise the Court if Defendant Stilphen wishe[d] to move to dismiss the negligent entrustment claim as to him[.]” (11/02/2017 Minute Entry.) On December 4, 2017, defense counsel notified the Court that he intended to file a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 89), which was fully briefed on February 16, 2018 (Dkt. 97). That same day, Plaintiffs moved, in part, to amend their complaint to add the negligent entrustment claim in the event that the Court granted Defendant Stilphen’s motion to dismiss the claim as being insufficiently pled. (Dkt. 100; Affirmation of Lester B. Herzog (“ Herzog Aff.”), Dkt. 101, at
