Also known as: undue delays · unreasonable delay
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A period of time that is excessive or unreasonable under the circumstances when the passage of time prejudices another party or the judicial process.
Ugo Uberti sued Ultrasonic Dynamics for breach of a supply contract. At trial Ultrasonic sought to introduce a letter in which Uberti had offered a reduced settlement amount. Uberti objected under the compromise rule. The court admitted the letter solely to show that Uberti had not been prejudiced by any supposed delay in filing suit.
Ulysses Maritime contracted to buy replacement engines from Umbra Technologies. After Umbra repudiated, Ulysses located substitute engines from two other suppliers and completed the purchases within ten days. Ulysses then sued for the price difference. The court found the purchases satisfied the cover requirements because they occurred without unreasonable delay.
Umeko Uchida waited eight years after discovering a continuing nuisance before seeking an injunction against her neighbor. The neighbor had invested heavily in the disputed structure during that period. The court denied the injunction in part because Uchida's extended inaction constituted unreasonable delay that weighed against equitable relief.
Uri Underwood offered twenty hours of deposition video to prove a single minor fact in a contract dispute. The opposing party objected that the presentation would consume excessive court time. The court excluded most of the video because its marginal probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of undue delay.
Ulf Ulfsson discovered ongoing trespass on his land but waited six years to sue for an injunction. During that time the defendant built permanent improvements. The court refused injunctive relief after weighing the plaintiff's unreasonable delay among the equitable factors.
Una Unger sought production of a police officer's counseling records in a civil rights action. The officer invoked the psychotherapist privilege. The court balanced the need for the evidence against the risk that compelled disclosure would cause undue delay in resolving the litigation and ultimately upheld the privilege.
On June 27, 1991, Police Officer Mary Lu Redmond responded alone to a dispatcher's report of a fight in progress at the Grand Canyon Estates apartment complex in the Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois. Upon arrival, she learned from two women that there had been a stabbing inside the building and requested backup and an ambulance. As Redmond approached the apartment building, five men ran out the front door yelling and screaming. One of the men was waving a pipe above his head. Almost immediately thereafter, two more men — a Caucasian man followed by an African-American man in hot pursuit — came running out of the door of the building. Officer Redmond testified that she ordered Allen to drop the knife multiple times before firing a single shot when he began the downward motion with the knife. Allen fell to the ground, and a butcher knife was later observed near his body by arriving officers. Allen's siblings who witnessed the event testified that Allen was unarmed at the time of the shooting. After the incident, Officer Redmond sought counseling from Karen Beyer, a licensed clinical social worker employed by the Village, meeting with her two or three times per week for several months. During pretrial discovery, the plaintiffs, who are the surviving family members of Ricky Allen, Sr., learned of the counseling sessions and subpoenaed Beyer for her notes and testimony. The defendants moved to quash the subpoena asserting privilege, but the district court denied the motion, ordered production, and later permitted unrestricted inquiry into the communications. When the defendants did not fully comply, the court instructed the jury that it could presume the notes would be unfavorable to the defendants. The jury returned a verdict awarding $45,000 on the federal claim and $500,000 on the state wrongful death claim. Officer Redmond and the Village appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, raising challenges to the deadly force jury instruction and the refusal to recognize the counseling privilege.
View caseA court may deny leave to amend when the movant has engaged in undue delay that prejudices the opposing party or the judicial process. The delay must be unreasonable and not merely the passage of time. The opposing party bears the burden of showing prejudice.
Delay is unreasonable when the buyer fails to act in good faith and with reasonable promptness after learning of the seller's breach. Courts measure reasonableness by commercial standards and the buyer's need to maintain operations.
Supporting sources
No. Unreasonable delay by the plaintiff is only one of several factors a court weighs when deciding whether to grant an injunction. The court also considers the nature of the interest, relative hardship, and any misconduct by the plaintiff.
Supporting sources
Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue delay, among other risks. The court must balance the evidence's usefulness against the time and confusion its presentation would create.
Supporting sources
…to communicate and to consult privately with a solicitor. This is so even if he is in custody provided that in such a case no unreasonable delay or hindrance is caused to the processes of investigation or the administration of justice by his doing so . . . ." [1964] Crim. L. Rev., at 166-167. : As stated by the Lord…