Synovus Bank v. Karp et al

Filing 109

ORDER affirming 96 Order on Motion to Compel; overruling 100 Objection to Magistrate Judge's Decision (Rule 72(a)) re 96 Order on Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 8/12/13. (nll)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00172-MR-DLH

SYNOVUS BANK,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JAMES G. KARP, G. DANIEL
)
SIEGEL, and THE KARP FAMILY
)
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )
)
SYNOVUS BANK,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BARRON S. WALL,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )
)
SYNOVUS BANK,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
KEVIN J. TRACY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )

Civil No. 1:10cv172

Civil No. 1:10cv201

Civil No. 1:10cv202

NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH
CAROLINA,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ANTHONY J. BARBIERI,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )
)
NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH
)
CAROLINA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
3GMA REALTY, LLC, and GERALD
)
ABATEMARCO,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )
)
SYNOVUS BANK,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GREGORY S. KEARY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )
)
NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH
)
CAROLINA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
2

Civil No. 1:10cv215

Civil No. 1:10cv217

Civil No. 1:10cv218

)
vs.
)
)
BENJAMIN W. ATKINSON and
)
DANIEL S. HINKSON,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )
)
NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH
)
CAROLINA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
KATHERINE H. WILLIAMS,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )
)
SYNOVUS BANK,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PATRICIA M. TRACY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )

Civil No. 1:10cv220

Civil No. 1:10cv221

Civil No. 1:10cv231

ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant-Borrowers’
Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision [Doc. 99] and Objections to Order of
Magistrate Judge Striking Their Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. 100].
3

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 15, 2012, the Court entered a Pretrial Order/Case

Management Plan, which set a discovery deadline of June 1, 2013 for the
above consolidated cases. [Doc. 59]. One month later, on July 1, 2013,
the Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Discovery in which they requested
entry of an Order directing the Bank to respond more fully to certain written
discovery requests. [Doc. 94].
On July 2, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Howell entered an
Order striking the Defendants’ Motion to Compel as untimely. [Doc. 96].
The Defendants now appeal, objecting to the striking of their Motion to
Compel. [Docs. 99 and 100].
II.

ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a

party may submit objections to a Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a nondispositive pretrial motion and seek that the Order be set aside in whole or
in part if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Under this standard, “[a] finding is
‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
4

United States v. U.S.

Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948); Walton
v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 160, 173-74 (4th Cir. 2006).
In the present case, the Magistrate Judge’s Order was not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. The case law of this District is clear that
motions to compel generally must be filed by the close of the discovery
period. Surrett v. Consol. Metco, Inc., No. 1:11cv106, 2012 WL 1340548,
at *2 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 18, 2012) (“Generally, a party must move to compel a
party to comply with a discovery request prior to the close of discovery or
the motion is untimely.”); Anderson v. Caldwell County Sheriff’s Office, No.
1:09cv423, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144517, at *3-4 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 14,
2011) (Howell, M.J.) (same); Rudolph v. Buncombe County Gov’t, No.
1:10cv203, 2011 WL 5326187, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2011) (same).
Because the Defendants filed their Motion to Compel after the close of
discovery, it was untimely and therefore properly stricken. Accordingly, the
Defendants’ Objections are overruled and the Magistrate Judge’s Order
striking the Defendants’ Motion to Compel as untimely is affirmed.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant-Borrowers’
Objections to Order of Magistrate Judge Striking Their Motion to Compel
5

Discovery [Doc. 100] are OVERRULED, and the July 2, 2013 Order of the
Magistrate Judge striking the Defendants’ Motion to Compel [Doc. 96] is
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: August 12, 2013

6