ORDER

G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

In this employment discrimination case, defendant Savannah Airport Commission (SAC) seeks to compel the production of several exhibits it believes plaintiff possesses. Doc. 31 at 1-2 (i.e., exhibits referenced in "notes and related documents" a SAC manager had provided to plaintiff). Plaintiff's counsel agreed in April that she would produce any missing exhibits within a few days, but she has gone radio silent despite defendant's requests (both formal and informal) that she either produce the remaining exhibits or affirm she doesn't have any additional exhibits. Id., Exhs. E, F & M. Plaintiff responds that she has "produced or offered" every "reasonably relevant" document in her possession, doc. 38 at 1, rendering the dispute moot. That she had produced all the discoverable material she had, of course, could have been communicated to defense counsel long before plaintiff filed her opposition brief. That sort of forthright candor would have enabled defendant to request a privilege log be prepared of all the documents plaintiff believed ought not be produced.

Defendant served plaintiff with supplemental discovery requests to suss out the missing exhibits issue, which have gone unanswered. Doc. 31 at 3; see id., Exhs. D, E, H, I & J. It also served supplemental discovery requests to investigate some of plaintiff's litigation theories, which have similarly gone unanswered. Id., Exh. G. Plaintiff argues that she "is in compliance with discovery," doc. 38 at 4, but does not dispute that she has not actually responded (either formally or informally) to those supplemental discovery requests.1 Indeed, she is still bogged down in document review, trudging through the "50,000 documents" timely produced by defendant in response to her own discovery requests. Doc. 38 at 6. Thus ensues her request to reopen discovery so that she has time to fully investigate her own case (e.g., reviewing those documents and deposing a witness), with no mention of defendant's impaired ability to fully mount a defense2 and nary a peep about why it took her more than a month after the close of discovery to realize she needed more time. Doc. 32; see also docs. 41 & 43 (amended/supplemented motions). Put simply, time was ticking and plaintiff failed to request more of it to accommodate the apparently Herculean task of reviewing everything defendant produced in response to her requests for discovery. A temporal quagmire, of plaintiff's own design, is not "good cause" warranting reopening discovery under the Rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also S.D. Ga. L. R. 26.2.

Accordingly, defendant's motion to compel (doc. 31) is GRANTED as it is meaningfully unopposed. Plaintiff is ORDERED to respond to defendant's supplemental discovery requests seeking information on the exhibits and elucidation of her litigation theories within 7 days of service of this Order. Any documents she believes ought not be produced, either on relevance or privilege grounds, shall be identified in a privilege log produced along with her responses to the exhibit discovery. Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery (docs. 32, 41 & 43) is further DENIED for lack of good cause.

SO ORDERED.