Appleton v. City of Gary

Filing 62

OPINION AND ORDER denying 45 Plaintiff Request for Statue of Limitations for Production of Material be Dismissed of Said Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 5/15/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party). (nal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
EBONY APPLETON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF GARY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-448

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Plaintiffs Request for Statute of Limitations for
Production of Material to be Dismissed of Said Documents [DE 45] filed by the pro se plaintiff,
Ebony Appleton, on April 11, 2018. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
Background
On October 18, 2016 the plaintiff, Ebony Appleton, pro se initiated this matter. Appleton
has alleged sex discrimination and retaliation against the defendant, City of Gary. Appleton
served the City with two requests for production of documents on July 21, 2017 and February 13,
2018. The City has indicated that it has responded to Appleton’s requests by producing all
relevant documentation, as well as noting its objections. Discovery in this matter closed on
February 28, 2018.
Appleton’s motion requests the City to produce a document that previously has not been
requested. Additionally, Appleton requests that the court compel the City to produce documents
that were requested in her first request for production.

Discussion
Appleton specifically has requested the “initial report from said incident of Marcus Hare
and Cecelia Garmon.” The City has indicated that this is a new request. Discovery in this matter
closed on February 28, 2018. Therefore, Appleton’s request is untimely, and the City is not
required to respond. Discovery requests not filed in sufficient time to allow the opponent to
respond within the discovery period are untimely, and the opponent is under no duty to comply.
Gordon v. Northeastern REMC, No. 1:02–CV–171, 2003 WL 21919179, at *2 (N.D. Ind. June
2, 2003).
The court recognizes that pro se litigants face special challenges that litigants represented
by counsel do not, however, pro se litigants are not excused from following procedural rules
simply because the Arules of procedure are based on the assumption that litigation is normally
conducted by lawyers.@ Lee v. Wal-Mart Stores, 1994 WL 899240, * 1 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 12,
1994). Even pro se litigants must follow court rules and obey court-imposed deadlines. See,
e.g., Jones v. Phipps, 39 F.3d 158, 163 (7th Cir. 1994) (“[P]ro se litigants are not entitled to a
general dispensation from the rules of procedure or court imposed deadlines.”). Although
Appleton should be given some leeway for her pro se status, she must comply with the discovery
deadlines, and she has not attempted to explain her noncompliance.
Next, Appleton requests that the court compel the City to produce “all documents named
in first request of production from Plaintiff.” Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor
the Local Rules impose a deadline to file motions to compel. Kruse, Inc. v. Hogan, 2011 WL
3747353, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 24, 2011). However, “motions to compel filed after the close of
discovery are almost always deemed untimely.” Kruse, 2011 WL 3747353 at *1 (internal
quotations and citations omitted). Courts may excuse an extended delay when the party offers a

2

reasonable and persuasive justification for the untimeliness. Longs v. Lebo, 2009 WL 799533, at
*1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2009); see Rossetto v. Pabst Brewing Co., 217 F.3d 539, 542 (7th Cir.
2000) (upholding a denial of motion to compel as untimely because it was filed two months after
the discovery deadline without an excuse for its tardiness); Barbour v. Memory Gardens Mgmt.
Corp., 2008 WL 1882847, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 23, 2008) (“ . . . Plaintiffs need an excuse for
their tardiness.”).
The City responded to Appleton’s first request for production on September 29, 2017.
Appleton waited until February 13, 2018, to serve the City with her second request for
production. Here, the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines have expired. “As a general
rule, if a moving party has unduly delayed in filing a motion for an order compelling discovery, a
court may conclude that the motion is untimely.” Banks v. CBOCS West, Inc., No. 01 C 0795,
2004 WL 723767, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr.1, 2004) (citation omitted). Appleton filed this motion
months after receiving the City’s responses, and she has not offered any excuse for her delay.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs Request for Statute of Limitations for
Production of Material to be Dismissed of Said Documents [DE 45] is DENIED.
ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2018.
/s/ Andrew P. Rodovich
United States Magistrate Judge

3