Goldstein v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Filing 103

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 92 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and for other relief; directing Defendant is to file writtenconfirmation that it has completed production of documents responsive to Plaintiff's discovery requests by deadline set forth. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 4/9/13. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
Fax [phone]

April 9, 2013
LETTER TO COUNSEL:
RE:

Goldstein v. FDIC-R;
Civil No. ELH-11-1604

Dear Counsel:
I have reviewed Plaintiff's Request for Expedited Order Regarding Discovery (ECF No.
92); Defendant's Opposition (ECF No. 95); Plaintiff's Reply (ECF No. 97); and Defendant's
Consensual Surreply (ECF No. 99). No hearing is deemed necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.
Md. 2011). For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's Request is Granted in Part and Denied in
Part. The scheduling order will be modified in accordance with this letter opinion.
Plaintiff's request arises from Defendant’s “supplemental production” of approximately
228,000 pages of documents on March 20, 2013, approximately one month before the current
discovery deadline. Defendant cites “discovery vendor error” for the belated production, and
notes that it unilaterally discovered and corrected the deficient production. I note that Defendant
should have notified Plaintiff immediately once the deficient production was discovered, to
allow both parties to conduct discovery with knowledge that a sizeable supplemental production
would be forthcoming.
Instead, Defendant delivered the “supplemental production”
approximately three weeks after it recognized the error, without providing earlier notice.
However, there is no evidence that Defendant acted in bad faith or otherwise engaged in
sanctionable conduct under Rule 37.
The question is the appropriate remedy for the belated production of responsive
documents. I concur with Plaintiff that a unilateral, sixty-day extension of the discovery
deadline is appropriate to permit Plaintiff time to review and conduct discovery relating to the
supplemental production. However, extensions to other deadlines will therefore become
necessary, and will have to be mutual in order to permit efficient litigation of the dispute. I have
modified the scheduling order accordingly, and the modified order is entered with this letter
opinion.
Defendant’s filings in this matter provide a detailed explanation of the reasons underlying
the supplemental production. Plaintiff's request that a more detailed explanation be provided is
therefore denied. However, on or before April 18, 2013, Defendant should file written
confirmation that it has completed production of documents responsive to Plaintiff's discovery
requests.

Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement of various fees and costs, including the costs
associated with his review of the supplemental production. That request is denied. Plaintiff
would have had to review the documents even had they been produced in the initial production.
Though the timing of the expense has shifted, the expense itself has not been affected by
Defendant’s actions. Moreover, because Plaintiff's rebuttal expert report has not yet been filed,
Plaintiff is not incurring additional expense to ask his expert to incorporate the supplemental
production into that report. Again, the same expense would have been incurred had the expert
considered the documents from the supplemental production at an earlier stage.
For the reasons described herein, Plaintiff's Request for Expedited Order Regarding
Discovery, ECF No. 92, is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant is ordered to file written
confirmation that it has completed production of documents responsive to Plaintiff's discovery
requests on or before April 18, 2013. A modified scheduling order is entered herewith.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it is an Order of the Court and will be docketed
as such.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge