Filed: Mar. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2016
Summary: ORDER VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON , District Judge . This cause is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Tracy Lee Kendall's Motion to Compel Discovery Response (Doc. # 28), filed on January 19, 2016, in connection with Kendall's response to Defendant Department of Veterans Affairs' Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 16, 2016, the VA filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion (Doc. # 30), arguing that the Motion to Compel is moot. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies
Summary: ORDER VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON , District Judge . This cause is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Tracy Lee Kendall's Motion to Compel Discovery Response (Doc. # 28), filed on January 19, 2016, in connection with Kendall's response to Defendant Department of Veterans Affairs' Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 16, 2016, the VA filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion (Doc. # 30), arguing that the Motion to Compel is moot. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies t..
More
ORDER
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Tracy Lee Kendall's Motion to Compel Discovery Response (Doc. # 28), filed on January 19, 2016, in connection with Kendall's response to Defendant Department of Veterans Affairs' Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 16, 2016, the VA filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion (Doc. # 30), arguing that the Motion to Compel is moot. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the Motion to Compel.
I. Legal Standard
A party is entitled to discovery:
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
When a party fails to respond or objects to a discovery request, the serving party may request an order compelling disclosure after making a good faith effort to resolve the contested issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). "The party resisting production of information bears the burden of establishing lack of relevancy or undue burden in supplying the requested information." Gober v. City of Leesburg, 197 F.R.D. 519, 521 (M.D. Fla. 2000).
II. Discussion
Kendall initiated this Rehabilitation Act case against the VA on December 30, 2014. (Doc. # 1). The Court's Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order established December 2, 2015, as the discovery deadline, January 4, 2016, as the dispositive motions deadline, and set the case for a pretrial conference on May 12, 2016. (Doc. # 23).
On January 4, 2016, the VA filed a timely Motion for Summary Judgment, which the Court will address via separate Order. (Doc. # 27). On January 19, 2016, Kendall responded to the VA's Motion with his "Response and Incorporated Memorandum of Law to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Compel Discovery Response." (Doc. # 28). The VA responded to the Motion to Compel on February 16, 2016. (Doc. # 30). In the Motion to Compel, Kendall submits that he served the VA with a request for production on September 24, 2015, with the VA's response due on October 24, 2015. (Doc. # 28 at 6). In his Motion to Compel, Kendall indicates "there has been no written response" to the request for production and "Defendant appears to have completely failed to respond to many of the requests to produce." (Id.).
The VA counters that it produced all documents that are responsive to the request for production on January 11, 2016, rendering the Motion to Compel moot. (Doc. # 30 at 2). The Court is troubled by the conflict between Kendall's January 19, 2016, statement that he has received no documents from the VA, and the VA's response that it produced relevant documents on January 11, 2016. However, it is not necessary to further probe into these contentions because the Court finds that the Motion to Compel is due to be denied as untimely filed.
Kendall submits that the VA's response to the request for production was due on October 24, 2015, but, when the VA failed to turn over the documents, Kendall waited more than three months — until January 19, 2016 — to file the instant Motion to Compel. "Motions to compel must be brought in a timely manner." Pushko v. Klebener, No. 3:05-cv-211-J-25HTS, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66223 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2007). Discovery closed on December 2, 2015, the dispositive motions deadline passed on January 4, 2016, and the Motion to Compel was thereafter filed on January 19, 2016. The Motion to Compel is therefore untimely. See Eli Research, LLC v. Must Have Info Inc., No. 2:13-cv-695-FTM-38CM, 2015 U.S. Dist LEXIS 103194 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2015)(denying motion to compel production of documents filed three days after discovery deadline). In addition, the Court notes that its own Case Management and Scheduling Order specifies: "The Court may deny as untimely all motions to compel filed after the discovery deadline." (Doc. # 23 at 3).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff Tracy Lee Kendall's Motion to Compel Discovery Response (Doc. # 28) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.
