ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS

TILMAN E. SELF, III, District Judge.

On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed motions to compel discovery [Doc. 98] and to request additional requests for production [Doc. 97] against Defendants. Plaintiff's motions are denied as untimely.

On July 10, 2019, Plaintiff served her requests for admissions ("RTAs") and requests for production of documents ("RPDs") to Defendants. [Doc. 97, p. 1]. Plaintiff served 41 requests for admissions and an additional 47 requests for productions. [Doc. 100, pp. 2-3]. In August 2019, Defendants responded, in part, by asserting objections to several discovery requests based on the limits set by Local Rules 34 and 36. [Id., p. 3]. Local Rule 34 limits the number of requests for production to 10, and Local Rule 36 limits the number of requests for admissions to 15. LR 34, MDGa; LR 36, MDGa.

The Court denies Plaintiff's request for additional RPDs because the request is simply way too late. [Doc. 97, p. 2]; LR 34, MDGa. While Defendant plainly objected to the number of discovery requests within 30 days of being served with them, Plaintiff did not address Defendant's objections as to the number of requests in any way under the local rules until the day discovery was scheduled to close, March 2, 2020, seven months after the objections were raised. Plaintiff had all of the information necessary to ask the Court to authorize additional requests (or better yet, ask beforehand) and failed to do so. The Plaintiff's motion for discovery over the number set by local rules is DENIED.

Further, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to respond to RPDs numbered above 10 and RTAs numbered above 15, Plaintiff's request is denied because Plaintiff did not get permission from the Court to issue excess requests before serving them. Thus, Defendants are not required to respond under the local rules. For Plaintiff's remaining RTAs and RPDs, the Court also denies the motion. Plaintiff has not yet downloaded and reviewed all of Defendants' provided discovery and does not yet know if Defendants' responses are insufficient. [Doc. 101, p. 1]; Telephone Conference before the Honorable Tilman E. Self, III, (M.D. Ga. March 6, 2020) (audio recording on file with clerk). Accordingly, Plaintiff is not certain that Defendants have failed to produce the requested discovery. Plaintiff acknowledged in the telephone conference that the requested discovery does not relate to any forthcoming dispositive motion's deadlines. Telephone Conference before the Honorable Tilman E. Self, III, (M.D. Ga. March 6, 2020, 10:44:34-10:47:55) (audio recording on file with clerk).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Request Additional Requests for Production [Doc. 97] and Motion to Compel [Doc. 98]. If Plaintiff identifies any documents Plaintiff was supposed to receive but did not, Plaintiff may file another motion to compel. But, the current deadline under the discovery order remains in place.

SO ORDERED.