Gentry v. Maggie Valley Resort Management, LLC et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying 62 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 3/10/2014. (tmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:13cv108
JUDITH GENTRY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MAGGIE VALLEY RESORT
)
MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Discovery [# 62]. Plaintiff
moves the Court to compel additional discovery from Defendants. The Court
DENIES the motion [# 62].
I.

Analysis

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); Murphy
-1-

v. Auto Advantage, Inc., 2012 WL 28781, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 2012) (Howell,
Mag. J.); Rudolph v. Buncombe Cnty Gov’t, No. 1:10cv203, 2011 WL 5326187
(W.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2011) (Howell, Mag. J.).
Discovery in this case closed February 1, 2014. On March 3, 2013, over a
month after the close of discovery, Plaintiff moved to allow a forensic expert
access to a computer to examine documents and data. In addition, Plaintiff moved
to compel Defendant Manner to answer deposition questions that he previously
refused to answer and to allow additional follow up questions of Defendant
Manner. The time for seeking additional discovery or moving to compel a party
to answer deposition questions, however, has long expired. Discovery in this case
is closed. Summary Judgment motions are pending before the District Court.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion [# 62].
II.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the Motion for Discovery [# 62].
Signed: March 10, 2014

-2-