MITCHELL D. DEMBIN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Extend the Deadline to Address Discovery Dispute Re: Supplemental Discovery Responses filed on August 1, 2017. (ECF No. 67). The Joint Motion is
Rule 26(e)(1)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P., governs supplementation of disclosures and responses. It provides:
Should a party fail to timely supplement a disclosure or response, Rule 37(c)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides the available remedies, as follows:
Additional sanctions also are available for failing timely to supplement a disclosure or response. See Rule 37(c)(1)(A)-(C).
Discovery in this case closed on September 1, 2016. (ECF No. 10 ¶ 3). The time to bring before the Court any disputes regarding the adequacy of discovery responses is long past. According to the Joint Motion, Plaintiff has provided Defendant with a number of supplemental responses and Defendant has requested that Plaintiff provide further supplemental responses to previously served discovery. See Joint Motion at 2 (ECF No. 67 at 2). The parties appear to be meeting and conferring regarding the supplemental responses but seek leave of Court to bring any disputes regarding supplemental responses before the Court no later than September 15, 2017. Id. at 2-3.
Supplemental responses or disclosures are a one-way street: the burden is placed upon the producing party to supplement responses or disclosures in a timely manner upon finding that their initial responses or disclosures are materially incomplete or inaccurate. See Rule 26(e)(1)(A). The receiving party cannot compel supplemental disclosures or responses nor is there a procedural vehicle for the receiving party to challenge the sufficiency of a supplemental disclosure. The receiving party is limited to challenging supplemental disclosures or responses as untimely. See Rule 37(c)(1). The producing party carries the burden of convincing the Court that the supplemental disclosures or responses are timely and, if not, the untimeliness is substantially justified or harmless. Id.
The sufficiency of a supplemental response or disclosure only comes into play if a party seeks to introduce evidence that the other party claims was not previously disclosed in response to or in a supplement to a previous discovery request. That is a matter for the district court to determine in considering whether that evidence must be excluded under Rule 37(c)(1).
The Joint Motion is