New York sought to amend the complaint to add small and medium-sized businesses to the group of consumers on whose behalf it purported to bring claims under the Donnelly Act. Judge Stark denied New York’s motion to amend, even though it was filed on the last day of the period allowed for amendments to pleadings under the court’s scheduling order. The court decided that the proposed amendment would cause undue prejudice to Intel due to the expansion of the number of plaintiffs, and if allowed, it would result in the need for additional discovery and a possible delay in the trial date. More troubling to the court was the ambiguity in New York’s definition of small and medium-sized business, which as proposed would include businesses having fewer than 500 employees. That definition would not provide sufficient certainty as to the identity of the persons making claims or to be covered by any judgment for purposes of res judicata. For example, the definition did not clarify whether certain businesses would be included as claimants if they had fewer than 500 employees for part of the damages period but exceeded that number at other times. Likewise, it was not clear how to handle businesses with some, but not all, of their employees in New York. The court recognized that New York filed the proposed amendment within the time allowed by the scheduling order. However, that finding was not dispositive, because the scheduling order was based upon the scope of the case as originally pled.