Scurlock v. Penthouse International Entertainment Consultants IEC

Filing 52

ORDER DENYING 46 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 11/10/16. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
PENTHOUSE
INTERNATIONAL)
ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTANTS IEC, )
)
)
Defendant.
CHARLES SCURLOCK,

Case No. 3:15-cv-338-JPG-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court is the Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff, Charles
Scurlock, on October 17, 2016 (Doc. 46). The Motion is DENIED.
In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel answers to interrogatories and requests to produce
that sought a copy of a log book and a video. Plaintiff states that he cannot depose Larry Scott or
Jim Lindsey, by the October 11, 2016 discovery deadline, because he does not have this evidence.
This Court took the Motion under advisement and directed Defendant to respond. Defendant
states that the video was served upon Plaintiff on June 24, 2016 and the logbook (in redacted form)
was served on August 4, 2016. Plaintiff did not inform Defendant that he could not view the
video until September 29, 2016; shortly thereafter, on October 6, 2016, Defendant sent to Plaintiff
another copy of the video. As to the log book, Defendant sent to Plaintiff another copy on August
4, 2016 with the names of individuals in the logbook redacted. On October 6, 2016, Defendant
sent an un-redacted version of the logbook. It appears that Plaintiff had not received the items by
the time he filed his motion.
In the meantime, the depositions of Scott and Lindsey were scheduled for October 11,

Page 1 of 2

2016, the discovery deadline. Defendant offered to provide a copy of the video for Plaintiff to
view prior to the deposition. Plaintiff represented to Defendant that he could not proceed with the
deposition. Although it is a little hazy as to whether Plaintiff stated he would appear anyway to
make a record, Defendant (and the witnesses) appeared, but Plaintiff did not.
Plaintiff should have attempted to view the videotape soon after it was produced, rather
than waiting over a month to inform Defendant that is was not viewable. Similarly, he should
have sought an un-redacted copy of the log book prior to September 29, 2016, only two weeks
prior to the discovery deadline. Plaintiff waited too long to seek relief in light of the looming
deadline. And, there is no showing that either of these items would have impacted the depositions
of Scott and Lindsey. Plaintiff had the means to seek relief prior to the discovery deadline but
choose to wait until the last minute to bring these matters to the Court’s attention.

At this point

in the litigation, Defendant already has filed a motion for summary judgment on the merits, a
response to which is due by December 5, 2016. The Motion is accordingly DENIED.
DATED: November 10, 2015

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2