do not allege that the motion to amend the complaint is legally frivolous or that granting it would result in unjustified delay or undue prejudice. Instead, in an attempt to refute plaintiffs’ claim that the Governor and Commissioner stood idle as SDHR’s caseload languished, defendants argue that plaintiffs motion cannot stand in the face of evidence that the SDHR’s case backlog has been significantly reduced since January 1995. (Defs.’ Objs. at 10-12). The defendants further allege that the Governor and Commissioner reduced the backlog without recourse to the new Rules. (Id.). These arguments, however, go to the merits of the defendants’ case and are inadequate to prevent a motion to amend. See Madison Fund, Inc. v. Denison Mines Ltd., 90 F.R.D. 89, 91 (S.D.N.Y.1981) (Duffy, J.) (<HOLDING>). Defendants also argue that NOW cannot
recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court holding that this court need not address the merits of an argument raised for the first time on appeal holding that federal courts must ensure that they have jurisdiction before considering the merits of a case holding that this court will not address the merits of an issue presented for the first time in a reply brief holding that considering an amendment is not the time to address the merits of a case