Synovus Bank v. Karp et al

Filing 96

ORDER striking 94 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 7/2/13. (nll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
SYNOVUS BANK,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JAMES G. KARP, G. DANIEL SIEGEL, )
and THE KARP FAMILY LIMITED
)
PARTNERSHIP,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
SYNOVUS BANK,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BARRON S. WALL,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH
)
CAROLINA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
KEVIN J. TRACY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

Civil No. 1:10-cv-172

Civil No. 1:10-cv-201

Civil No. 1:10-cv-202

NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH
CAROLINA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY J. BARBIERI,
Defendant.
NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH
CAROLINA,
Plaintiff,
v.
3GMA REALTY, LLC; and
GERALD M. ABATEMARCO,
Defendants.
SYNOVUS BANK,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGORY S. KEARY,
Defendant.

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

2

Civil No. 1:10-cv-215

Civil No. 1:10-cv-217

Civil No. 1:10-cv-218

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

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

Civil No. 1:10-cv-220

Civil No. 1:10-cv-221

Civil No. 1:10-cv-231

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Compel.

[# 94].

Defendants move to compel Plaintiff to fully respond to their
discovery requests.

The Court STRIKES the Motion to Compel

94] as untimely.
I.

Analysis

3

[#

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not
specify a specific time limit for the filing of a motion to
compel.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37; PCS Phosphate Co. v. Norfolk

Southern Corp., 238 F.R.D. 555, 558 (E.D.N.C. 2006).

Absent a

specific order from the Court in the scheduling order, a party
must generally move to compel a party to comply with a discovery
request prior to the close of discovery or the motion is
untimely. See Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v. Sonia Invs., 237 F.R.D.
395, 397-98 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (collecting cases); Rudolph v.
Buncombe Cnty Gov’t, No. 1:10cv203, 2011 WL 5326187 (W.D.N.C.
Nov. 4, 2011) (Howell, Mag. J.);
No. 1:04cv789,

Lane. v. Lucent Techs., Inc.,

2007 WL 2079879 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 13, 2007).

Discovery in this case closed June 1, 2013.
deadline was June 15, 2013.
July 1, 2013.

The mediation

Summary Judgment motions were due

Defendants, however, waited until a month after

the close of discovery to file their Motion to Compel.

The time

for moving to compel has long passed, and the Court STRIKES the
motion from the record.

Defendants should have filed any

discovery motions prior to the close of discovery.
II.

Conclusion

The Court STRIKES the Motion to Compel [# 94].

Signed: July 2, 2013

4