that the district court’s mention of having considered the “entire lengthy record” indicates that the court, in concluding that amendment would be both untimely and futile, relied in part upon the overall history of the dispute, including the case CBS had previously initiated in Florida. Whether the court meant to encompass that history within the reason for its decision is not clear, however; the “lengthy record” in question may well refer only to the present litigation, which alone had been going on for more than three years at the time. In either event, the district court erred; the prolonged nature of a case does not itself affect whether the plaintiff may amend its complaint. See, e.g., Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Kevin Tucker & Assoc., Inc., 64 F.3d 1001 (6th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Buder v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding that a district court abuses its discretion in denying a motion to amend when the opposing partys case for prejudice is stated  only in the most conclusory of terms and no particular witnesses or documents are identified to support the argument that a delay would prejudice a party holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend after a delay of eight months holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add count when no prejudice resulted from two and onehalf year delay and facts underlying new and old counts were similar holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add claim when party opposing motion made no showing of prejudice from delay