WELCH v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY

Filing 100

MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/29/2013. The parties appeared by counsel April 29, 2013, to address a discovery dispute invo lving Defendant's production of documents. Plaintiff asked the Court to require Defendant to produce spreadsheets or job histories for two comparator employees. The documents contain info rmation disclosing the comparators' salary and positions held with the Defendant, which Plaintiff wants to use in response to Defendant's pending summary judgment motion. T he problem is that Plaintiff's request is untimely. This discovery dispute stems from requests for production Plaintiff served two years ago in April 2011 (see Order for details) Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker. (SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

CASSANDRA WELCH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ELI LILLY & COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:10-cv-01705-LJM-TAB

ORDER ON APRIL 29, 2013, TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE
The parties appeared by counsel April 29, 2013, to address a discovery dispute involving
Defendant’s production of documents. Plaintiff asked the Court to require Defendant to produce
spreadsheets or job histories for two comparator employees. The documents contain information
disclosing the comparators’ salary and positions held with the Defendant, which Plaintiff wants
to use in response to Defendant’s pending summary judgment motion.
The problem is that Plaintiff’s request is untimely. This discovery dispute stems from
requests for production Plaintiff served two years ago in April 2011. Plaintiff’s Request No. 3
included a broadly worded request for information that arguably sought these spreadsheets. But
when Defendant did not produce this information for comparator employees Angela Huff and
Jeff Moore, Plaintiff admittedly and inexplicably failed to follow up. This type of information
has been produced in related cases, but Defendant did not produce this information in this case
for Huff and Moore. It is not entirely clear why Defendant did not produce this information for
these comparators in this case, though Defendant did raise a number of objections in response to

the request and noted that Plaintiff failed to previously bring this alleged shortcoming to
Defendant’s attention.
Indeed, two years has passed since Plaintiff served this discovery request, and in March
of 2013 the discovery deadline closed. Defendant then filed its motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff has since requested and was granted three motions to enlarge the deadline to file her
summary judgment response. [Docket Nos. 93, 95, 98.] Plaintiff’s response is now due May 3,
but the instant discovery dispute threatens to again disrupt that deadline.
The Court recently addressed a similar issue in Corre Opportunities Fund v. Emmis
Communications Corp., 1:12-cv-491-SEB-TAB (April 10, 2012). In that case, the Plaintiff
waited until the eve of the discovery deadline (which the Court previously extended) to seek
leave to complete additional discovery. The Court denied the request as untimely, relying on
Everett v. Aldi, Inc., 1:07-CV-275, 2009 WL 940379, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 6, 2009), which
focused on three questions: (i) how long was the delay?; (ii) was there an explanation for it?; and
(iii) what happened during the delay?
As in Corre Opportunities, these factors do not help the Plaintiff. First, the two-year
delay is extensive. Second, Plaintiff admittedly failed to follow up and has no good explanation
for this failure. Third, during this extensive delay there have been other discovery issues brought
to the Court’s attention, deadlines extended, and a summary judgment motion filed. As a result,
Plaintiff’s request for this information at this stage is untimely and is denied.
Dated: 4/29/2013

_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
2 Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Sandra L. Blevins
BETZ & ASSOCIATES
[e-mail]
Benjamin C. Ellis
BETZ & BLEVINS
[e-mail]
Kevin W. Betz
BETZ & BLEVINS
[e-mail]
Jamenda A. McCoy
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP - Chicago
[e-mail]
Ellen E. Boshkoff
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP - Indianapolis
[e-mail]
Joseph C. Pettygrove
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP - Indianapolis
[e-mail]
Rozlyn M. Fulgoni-Britton
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP - Indianapolis
[e-mail]
Matthew Louis Schmid
SANFORD HEISLER, LLP
[e-mail]
Sharon Yvette Eubanks
SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER LLP
[e-mail]
Kristen L. Walsh
SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
[e-mail]
Jill Z. Julian
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
[e-mail]