Ladwig v. United Airlines, Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER denying 34 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/28/2015.(emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02152-RBJ-MJW
RENEE LADWIG,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (DOCKET NO. 34)

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket no. 34).
The court has reviewed the subject motion (docket no. 34) and the response (docket no.
36). In addition, the court has taken judicial notice of the court’s file and has considered
applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. The court now being fully
informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The court finds:
1.

That I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties
to this lawsuit;

2.

That venue is proper in the state and District of Colorado;

3.

That each party has been given a fair and adequate opportunity to
be heard;

2
4.

That the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide any
deadline for filing of a motion to compel. However, courts look to
the discovery cut-off date in considering whether a motion to
compel is timely. See Northwest Territory Limited Partnership v.
Omni Properties, Inc., 2006 WL 3618215, at *1 (D. Colo. 2006)
(citing Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v. Sonia Investments, 237 F.R.D.
395, 397-98 (N.D. Tex. 2006)). The other factors that courts
consider in determining whether a motion to compel is timely
include: (1) the length of time since the discovery deadline expired;
(2) the length of time that the moving party has known about the
discovery; (3) whether the discovery deadlines has been extended;
(4) the explanation for the tardiness or delay in filing the motion to
compel; (5) whether dispositive motions have been scheduled or
filed; (6) the age of the case; (7) any prejudice to the party from
whom the discovery is being sought; and (8) any disruption of the
court’s schedule . Id.;

5.

That plaintiff filed the subject motion (docket no. 34) on April 21,
2015, which is four days after the discovery cut-off date. The
discovery cut-off date was April 17, 2015. Further, that the
dispositive motion deadline is set for May 18, 2015. See
Scheduling Order (docket no. 22), section 9, subparagraphs b and
c;

6.

That the subject motion (docket no. 34) seeks an Order from the

3
court to compel defendant to respond further to Plaintiff’s
interrogatories 5 and 10(d) and (e), and request for production nos.
3, 5, 13 and 18. These interrogatories and requests for production
were served upon defendant on October 13, 2014, and defendant
responded on November 21, 2014, to this first set of interrogatories
and requests for production. As to plaintiff’s third set of requests for
admission, interrogatories, and requests for production, they were
served upon defendant on February 10, 2015, and defendant
responded on March 16, 2015. As to the first two factors under
Northwest Territory Limited Partnership, the subject motion (docket
no. 34) was filed approximately five months after plaintiff received
the defendant’s initial objections and responses to plaintiff’s first set
of interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for
production;
7.

That as to the third factor under Northwest Territory Limited
Partnership, Judge Jackson denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify
Scheduling Order and Continue Discovery Cut-Off to Allow for
Further Written Discovery (docket no. 30) [filed on March 23, 2015]
on March 25, 2015. See docket no. 33.;

8.

That as to the fourth factor under Northwest Territory Limited
Partnership, the plaintiff provides no explanation for the tardiness or
delay in filing her motion to compel (docket no. 34);

4
9.

That as to the fifth and sixth factors under Northwest Territory
Limited Partnership, the dispositive motion deadline is May 18,
2015, and this case was filed on August 3, 2014. See Scheduling
Order (docket no. 22), section 9 b. and Complaint (docket no. 1);

10.

That as to the seventh factor under Northwest Territory Limited
Partnership, the defendant would suffer prejudice by having to
spend additional resources, time, and expense, at this late stage of
the litigation, responding to discovery after the discovery cut-off
date has expired and while in preparation for filing of dispositive
motions;

11.

That as to the eighth factor under Northwest Territory Limited
Partnership, there would be a disruption in the timely filing of
dispositive motions and legal briefing at this late stage of this case
if the subject motion (docket no. 34) were granted; and

12.

That Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket no. 34) is clearly untimely
and should be denied.
ORDER

WHEREFORE, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law this
court ORDERS:
1.

That Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket no. 34) is DENIED; and

2.

That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this
motion.

5
Done this 28th day of April 2015.

BY THE COURT

s/Michael J. Watanabe
MICHAEL J. WATANABE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE