Grimes v. Gary Community School Corporation et al

Filing 48

OPINION AND ORDER granting 44 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Dara M Grimes and denying 43 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Dara M Grimes. Discovery deadline is extended to and including 11/28/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 9/5/14. (kjp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
DARA M. GRIMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARY COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORP.,
CITY OF GARY, D. GOSHAY, and
A. BRADSHAW,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:13-cv-36

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion for Order to Compel Discovery Response
From Defendant Gary Community School Corporation [DE 43] and the Motion for Extension of
Time to Complete Discovery [DE 44] filed by the plaintiff, Dara M. Grimes, on July 18, 2014
and July 19, 2014, respectively.
In her motion to compel, Grimes requests:
A completed affidavit with a copy of any and all employee and personnel records,
including but not limited to, memoranda, rate of pay, applications, job descriptions,
references, training completed, awards, reprimands, attendance, sick leave, doctor
notes, insurance records, benefits and Worker's Compensation records,
performance reviews, letters, correspondence, payroll and W-2 forms.
Pertaining to: Defendant A. Bradshaw

On April 14, 2014, Grimes filed a Motion to Compel discovery from the Gary
Community School Corporation. See DE 32. The following day, she filed a Motion to Compel
requesting documents from D. Goshay. See DE 34. Grimes attached the present motion as an
exhibit.1 The defendants filed a response to the motion to compel discovery from the Gary

1

In her motion for extension of time, Grimes states that “Plaintiff filed combined Motion to Compel
Production instead of two separate motions as required per Court’s Law Clerk.” To clarify the record, Attorney

1

Community School Corporation only, indicating that it had turned over the requested discovery
after Grimes filed her motion. As an exhibit to their response, the defendants included a copy of
an e-mail showing that they included their responses to the discovery requests related to A.
Bradshaw and D. Goshay. The attachment shows that the e-mail was sent on April 16, 2014.
Grimes now has filed the same motion pertaining to A. Bradshaw that she included as an
exhibit to her motion to compel related to D. Goshay. Grimes has not updated her motion to
show which documents remain outstanding in light of the discovery the defendants provided on
April 16, 2014. Moreover, the certificate of the good faith efforts her counsel took to resolve the
discovery dispute indicates that the last communication he had with the defendants concerning
the discovery requests occurred on March 7, 2014, prior to their production of documents
pertaining to A. Bradshaw. She cannot satisfy her duty to attempt to resolve the discovery
dispute prior to filing a motion to compel by relying on communications that took place before
discovery was supplemented. See Design Basics, Inc. v. Granite Ridge Builders, Inc., 2007
WL 1830809, *2 (N.D.Ind. June 21, 2007) (denying motion to compel where it was apparent that
the plaintiff did not confer with defendant after the defendant supplemented its discovery
responses). Grimes should have attempted to obtain any documents from the defendants that she
believes remain outstanding prior to filing the present motion. See Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37, Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 37-1. For these reasons, Grimes’
Motion for Order to Compel Discovery Response From Defendant Gary Community School
Corporation [DE 43] is DENIED.

Grimes contacted the court to inquire about the status of his motion to compel production of documents pertaining to
A. Bradshaw. The court informed Grimes that he never filed a motion to compel documents pertaining to A.
Bradshaw and that the motion he believed that he filed was instead filed as an exhibit to his motion pertaining to D.
Goshay. The court did not advise Grimes either that Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 7-1 requires motions to
be filed separately or that he should file a separate motion.

2

Grimes also moves for an extension of the discovery deadline. The defendants have not
filed a response in opposition. For this reason, the court GRANTS Grimes’ Motion for
Extension of Time to Complete Discovery [DE 44] and EXTENDS the discovery deadline to
and including November 28, 2014.
ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2014.

/s/ Andrew P. Rodovich
United States Magistrate Judge

3