STEPP v. REXNORD INDUSTRIES, INC.

Filing 139

ORDER denying 85 Motion to Compel Defendant to Submit Application Data. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 10/2/2014 (dist made) (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

DAMON P. STEPP,
Plaintiff,
vs.
REXNORD INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________
Jay Meisenhelder,
Intervenor.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-cv-00683-TWP-MJD

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Submit
Application Data. [Dkt. 85.] For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
I.

Background

Mr. Stepp was pro se when he initiated this action. [Dkt. 1.] An initial pretrial conference
was conducted on August 15, 2013, during which Mr. Stepp received detailed information
regarding the various discovery tools available to him. On August 23, 2013, the Court issued an
agreed Scheduling Order, which provided that “[a]ll discovery must be completed by February
29, 2014. [Dkt. 21 at 2 (emphasis in original).]
On August 27, 2013, attorney Jay Meisenhelder entered an appearance on behalf of Mr.
Stepp. [Dkt. 22.] Thereafter, on September 25, 2013, an agreed Case Management Plan was
entered by the Court, which provided that “non-expert witness discovery and discovery relating
to liability issues shall be completed by April 1, 2014.” [Dkt. 29 at 5-6 (emphasis in original).]
1

On March 18, 2014, Mr. Meisenhelder moved to withdraw as counsel for Mr. Stepp. [Dkt. 50.]
The Court granted the motion, [Dkt. 57], and Plaintiff resumed litigating this case pro se.
On June 4, Plaintiff filed the current Motion to Compel Defendant to Submit Application
Data. [Dkt. 85.] He sought to compel Defendant to produce electronic employee hiring data for
2010, 2011 and 2012 [Id. at 2.]
II.

Discussion

As described above, non-expert discovery in this case closed on April, 1, 2014. Plaintiff’s
motion is therefore untimely, and he must show “good cause” for disregarding the Court’s
schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. Plaintiff has not done so: His motion contains no explanation for
why he waited until after the discovery deadline to request the hiring data, [Dkt 85 at 1-2], and
he therefore has not presented any cause—let alone “good cause”—for his delay.
Moreover, Plaintiff has 1) filed his motion to compel without first attempting to serve on
Defendants a request for the data; and 2) filed his motion to compel without Rule 37’s required
certification that he met with Defendant and tried to resolve the dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a).
This alone is enough to deny Defendant’s motion. See Remy Inc. v. Tecnomatic, S.P.A., No.
1:11-cv-00991-SEB-MJD, 2013 WL 619894, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 19, 2013).
III.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant
to Submit Application Data. [Dkt. 85.]

Date: 10/02/2014

2

Distribution:
DAMON P. STEPP
8659 Rockville Road
Indianapolis, IN 46234
Jay Meisenhelder
EMPLOYMENT AND CIVIL RIGHTS LEGAL SERVICES
[e-mail]
Charles B. Baldwin
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART
[e-mail]
Christopher C. Murray
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART
[e-mail]
Michelle R. Maslowski
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART
[e-mail]

3