Summary
The court denied without prejudice the pro se plaintiff’s motion to determine the sufficiency of defendants’ responses to requests for admissions and motion to compel. The court held that the motions were untimely, were filed after the discovery deadline without good cause, and did not comply with applicable conferral and certification requirements, while permitting reconsideration if specified conditions are satisfied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff's motion to determine the sufficiency of Defendants' responses to requests for admissions should be granted when it was filed after the discovery deadline and without compliance with the required conference and certification procedures.
- Whether Plaintiff's motion to compel should be granted when it was filed after the discovery deadline, without good cause for an extension, without the required meet-and-confer process, and without a Rule 37(a)(1) certification.
Holdings
- A discovery motion filed after the discovery deadline, without a showing of good cause for extending the deadline, may be denied as untimely under the case management order and Local Civil Rules 7(b)(2)(C) and 7(b)(11).
- A party seeking discovery relief must comply with the required conference process before filing a motion.
- A motion to compel must include the certification required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) showing a good-faith effort to obtain discovery without court action.
Key quotations
“any non-dispositive motion served beyond the motion deadline imposed in the case management order may be denied solely because the motion is not timely served.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to determine sufficiency of Defendants’ responses to requests for admissions [Doc. 32] and Plaintiff’s motion to compel [Doc. 33] are hereby DENIED without prejudice.”
Factual background
Plaintiff served interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission on Defendants shortly before the discovery deadline. Defendants served timely responses and objections on March 6 and March 9, 2026. Plaintiff objected to alleged deficiencies and filed his motions on March 13, after the March 9 discovery deadline, without obtaining an extension, completing the required conference process, or filing a Rule 37(a)(1) certification.
Procedural history
The case management order set March 9, 2026, as the discovery deadline. Plaintiff served discovery on February 5, 2026, and amended requests on February 8, 2026; Defendants served responses and objections on March 6 and March 9. Plaintiff filed the motions on March 13, after the discovery deadline, without first completing the required conference process or filing the required good-faith conference certification. The court denied the motions without prejudice and specified conditions for any renewed motions.