Bailey vs Cabell County Commission
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 26 MOTION to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 8/10/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (dcm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
MICHELLE BAILEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 3:11-cv-00407
CABELL COUNTY COMMISSION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 26).
Although the time permitted for a response by Defendant has not yet expired, the
Court finds sufficient information in the documents of record to dispose of the
motion without further briefing or argument.
Plaintiff filed this civil action in the Circuit Court of Cabell County, West
Virginia on April 7, 2011. Defendant removed the case to federal court on June 8,
2011 (ECF No. 1). On August 8, 2011, the Honorable Robert C. Chambers, United
States District Judge, entered a Scheduling Order, which included a discovery
deadline of July 13, 2012 (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff served the Defendant with
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on September 6, 2011
(ECF No. 8), and Defendant responded to the discovery on October 21, 2011 (ECF
No. 9). These responses are the subject of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. A review
of the Court’s docket indicates that the discovery deadline has not been extended
-1-
by the presiding district judge, and the parties have submitted no stipulations
pertaining to the responses in dispute.
L.R. Civ. P. 37.1(c) provides that “[m]otions to compel or other motions in
aid of discovery not filed within 30 days after the discovery response or
disclosure requirement was due are waived, and in no event provide an excuse,
good cause or reason to delay trial or modify the scheduling order.” See Local
Rules of Procedure, United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, amended June 30, 2011. Based upon this rule, a motion to compel
answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents
should have been filed no later that November 9, 2011.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
motion to compel is untimely.
Unlike some of this District’s Local Rules, Rule 37.1(c) does not expressly
permit a party to escape application of the waiver provision “for good cause
shown.”2 Nevertheless, courts have on occasion overlooked a party’s technical
failure to comply with Rule 37.1(c) when warranted by the circumstances. See,
e.g., Mordesovitch v. Westfield Insur. Co., 235 F.Supp.2d 512, 518 (S.D.W.Va.
2002) (For purposes of efficiency, the court considered the merits of an untimely
motion to compel given that the discovery deadline had been extended).
However, this case does not fall within that category. Although Defendant
answered the discovery in October 2011, Plaintiff made no effort to communicate
The Local Rules indicate that the date on which discovery responses and objections are due is
the “time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the scheduling order(s), or stipulation
of the parties pursuant to FR Civ P 29, whichever governs.” L.R.Civ. P. 37.1(a). In this case, the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governed because the scheduling order did not address the issue
and the parties did not file a stipulation pursuant to Rule 29.
1
For example, L. R. Civ. P. 37.1(a) provides that objections to discovery requests not timely filed
are deemed waived “unless otherwise ordered for good cause shown.”
2
-2-
the perceived inadequacies of the responses until March 12, 2012, more than four
months after expiration of the deadline for filing a motion to compel. Another
five months passed before the motion was filed; thus, the motion was presented
to the Court nine months past due and nearly one month after the close of
discovery. Consequently, the circumstances of this case simply do not justify
dispensing with the waiver provision.
Wherefore, for the forgoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel. The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of
record.
It is so ORDERED.
ENTERED: August 10, 2012.
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?