DECISION and ORDER INTRODUCTION Allowing parties to amend their pleadings can simplify a case — assuming they address the correct legal standard. But here, Johnson has failed to address the correct legal standard under controlling Second Circuit precedent. The Court denies his second motion to amend for this reason. Separately, even if the Court considered Johnson’s motion under the correct legal standard, it fails. Johnson provides threadbare “good cause” under Rule 16(b) for filing the motion outside of the applicable deadline. Johnson wants to add allegations to meet the “federal standard” — a standard Johnson has known about since this case was removed. And even for the expert report information Johnson only recently obtained, his arguments about good cause are perfunctory. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Korrie Johnson sued Defendant Barnett Outdoors, LLC, filing his complaint in state court on March 18, 2021. (ECF No. 39-3.) Johnson purchased a crossbow that Barnett Outdoors “designed,” “manufactured,” “marketed,” and “distributed.” (Id.
5-8.) He alleges that “while in the process of utilizing” this crossbow that he suffered injury. (Id. 10.) Barnett Outdoors removed the case to this Court on April 9, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) On August 13, 2021, the parties consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, permitting the undersigned to dispose of this case. (ECF No. 9.) The parties agree to multiple scheduling orders. After consenting, parties proceeded with discovery, agreeing to multiple scheduling orders under Rule 16. Each of these had a deadline for motions to amend. (3d Am. Scheduling Order 3, Feb. 9, 2023, ECF No. 33; 2d Am. Scheduling Order 3, May 17, 2022; Am. Scheduling Order 3, Mar. 4, 2022.) Johnson moved to amend well after the applicable deadline of December 15, 2021. (Scheduling Order 3, ECF No. 10, Aug. 16, 2021.) He moved nearly two years later, on September 7, 2023. (ECF No. 39.) Johnson brings his late motion to amend for two reasons. According to Johnson, his motion to amend serves two purposes. First, Johnson acknowledges, “[t]he Federal pleading standard is much different.” (Mem. of Law, ECF No. 45-11, Nov. 15, 2023.) Johnson thus “seeks to [ ] amplify his original pleading to meet the Federal standard.” (Id. at 2.) Second, Johnson notes his proposed amendments are based on a “recently completed” expert report. (Id. at 4.) Johnson adds that “[t]he amendments to the [c]omplaint are highly technical in nature.” (Id. at 5.) For a bit of the proposed amended complaint, this may be true. But the complaint seems largely devoted to amplifying — not adding — expert material. Looking at the proposed amendments, many are not “highly technical in nature.” (Id.) Really, just a handful of the proposed amendments seem to deal with new information that Johnson may have learned during expert discovery. (Proposed Am. Compl.
