Kotsias v. CMC II, LLC et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 72 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 1/12/2017. (kby)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:15cv242
RITA KOTSIAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CMC II, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Compel [# 72]. Plaintiff move the
Court to compel Defendants to provide complete responses to discovery requests.
The Court DENIES the motion [# 72].
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 or to compel
a deposition 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); Synovus Bank v. Karp, Civil Case No. 1:10-cv-00172, 2013 WL

4052625, at * 1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 12, 2013) (Reidinger, J.); U.S. v. $28,720.00 in
United States Currency, No. 1:13cv106, 2014 WL 1570925, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Apr.
17, 2014) (Howell, Mag. J.); Wellness Group, LLC v. King Bio, Inc., No.
1:12cv281, 2013 WL 5937722, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2013) (Howell, Mag. J.);
Murphy 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 December 15, 2016. (Order, Nov. 17, 2016,
ECF No. 68.) Summary Judgment motions were due on January 1, 2017. (Am.
Pretrial Order, Oct. 11, 2016, ECF No. 58.) Plaintiff filed her Motion to Compel
December 28, 2016, after the close of discovery. As the Pretrial Order warned the
parties, “[m]otions to compel must be filed within the discovery period or they
may be deemed waived.” (Pretrial Order, May 10, 2016 at p. 6, ECF No. 22.)
One of the reasons for this rule is that filing a motion to compel after the closing of
the discovery period does not provide this Court with sufficient time to rule on the
motion prior to the expiration of the dispositive motion deadline. At a minimum,
parties must file any discovery motions prior to the close of discovery or this
Court, as it has done in numerous cases, will find that the party waived the right to
challenge the alleged discovery abuse. Because Plaintiff failed to file her Motion
to Compel within the discovery period, the motion is untimely, and the Court

DENIES the motion.
II.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the Motion to Compel [# 72].
Signed: January 12, 2017