Southern University System Foundation v. Henderson et al
Filing
88
ORDER denying 85 Defendant Gary Shelton's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Initial Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 11/4/2015. (BCL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
FOUNDATION
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 14-288-JJB-RLB
ANDRE HENDERSON, ET AL.
NOTICE
Before the court is Defendant Gary Shelton’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to
Initial Discovery (R. Doc. 85) filed on October 30, 2015. Defendant Shelton seeks an order
requiring Plaintiff to respond to discovery propounded on June 24, 2015 (First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents), June 30, 2015 (Second Set of
Requests for Production of Documents), and July 1, 2015 (Third Set of Requests for Production
of Documents). (R. Doc. 85-1 at 2). The time for filing an opposition has not expired. See LR
7(f).
Defendant Shelton removed this action from state court on May 9, 2014. (R. Doc. 1). On
February 25, 2015, the court issued a Scheduling Order setting the deadline to file all discovery
motions and complete all discovery except experts on July 1, 2015 (R. Doc. 79), the date
requested by the parties in a joint Status Report (R. Doc. 48 at 12-13). The court has not
extended this deadline, nor have any parties sought to have this deadlines extended.
Pursuant to Local Rule 26(d)(2), “[w]ritten discovery is not timely unless the response to
that discovery would be due before the discovery deadline” and “[t]he responding party has no
obligation to respond and object to written discovery if the response and objection would not be
due until after the discovery deadline.” LR 26(d)(2). The court’s scheduling order established
July 1, 2015 as the deadline for completing all non-expert discovery. The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure allow a party thirty days from service to respond to interrogatories and requests for
production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2) (interrogatories); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A) (requests for
production). Accordingly, the discovery requests propounded by Defendant Sheldon on
June 24, 2015; June 30, 2015; and July 1, 2015 are untimely, and Plaintiff had no duty to respond
to these discovery requests. LR 26(d)(2); see also Thomas v. IEM, Inc., No. 06-886, 2008 WL
695230, at *2 (M.D. La. March 12, 2008) (document requests were untimely as the date for
responding “would have fallen outside the [January 15] discovery deadline (i.e., thirty days from
service of the Rule 34 request, or January 23, 2008”); Borniski v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 32 F.
Supp. 2d 918, 919 (N.D. Tex. 1998) (discovery served on eve of discovery deadline untimely
because “deadline set out in the scheduling order was for the completion, not the initiation, of
discovery”).
Furthermore, pursuant to Local Rule 26(d)(1), “[a]bsent exceptional circumstances, no
motions relating to discovery, including motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), 29, and 37, shall be
filed after the expiration of the discovery deadline, unless they are filed within seven days after
the discovery deadline and pertain to conduct during the final seven days of discovery.” LR
26(d)(1). Accordingly, the instant motion to compel, which was filed on October 30, 2015,
approximately four months after the July 1, 2015 deadline to file such a motion, is also untimely.
See LR 26(d)(1); see also Price v. Maryland Cas. Co., 561 F.2d 609, 611 (5th Cir. 1977)
(denying motion to compel filed after the close of discovery where party had been “inexcusably
dilatory in his efforts”); Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v. Sonia Investments, 237 F.R.D. 395, 396-99
(N.D. Tex. 2006) (motion to compel was untimely filed two weeks after the discovery deadline;
motion should have been filed within discovery deadline); Wells v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 203
F.R.D. 240, 241 (S.D. Miss. 2001) (“[I]f the conduct of a respondent to discovery necessitates a
motion to compel, the requester of the discovery must protect himself by timely proceeding with
the motion to compel. If he fails to do so, he acts at his own peril.”)).
In short, Defendant Shelton’s motion to compel must be denied on the basis that (1) the
underlying discovery at issue was untimely served, and (2) the motion itself was untimely filed.
The court finds no exceptional circumstances for considering the untimely motion or basis for
extending the discovery deadline.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Gary Shelton’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s
Responses to Initial Discovery (R. Doc. 85) is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on November 4, 2015.
S
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?