Calvin Reed v. P.O. Andre Logan, et al.

Background

Calvin Reed submitted a letter asking the Court to reopen discovery so he could serve a request for “surveillance.” The Court understood that request to include any surveillance video and body-worn-camera footage showing the alleged assault on Reed by defendant parole officers on September 13, 2019. Defendants opposed the request as untimely and stated that they were not aware of, or in possession of, any video or body-camera footage related to Reed’s allegations.

The parties were originally required to serve written discovery requests by November 27, 2023. Reed did not serve his own requests by that date, did not timely respond to defendants’ requests, and failed to appear at two court conferences. On February 1, 2024, the Court extended the deadline to March 1, 2024, and warned that Reed could be deemed to have waived the right to seek written discovery if he missed the new deadline. Reed again failed to serve requests or respond to defendants’ requests. On March 27, 2024, the Court concluded that he had waived his right to serve additional written discovery requests.

Reed later responded to defendants’ discovery requests and sat for a deposition, but he never served discovery requests of his own or asked for permission to do so before discovery closed on November 30, 2024. The opinion also notes that he continued to miss some scheduling obligations. A separate motion by defendants to dismiss Reed’s claims for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders remained pending before the District Judge; this order addressed only Reed’s request to reopen discovery.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a party seeking to modify a pretrial scheduling order must show “good cause.” Courts consider whether the party had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery, whether the party acted diligently within the court’s deadlines, and whether the requested discovery is likely to lead to relevant evidence.

Ruling

Judge Barbara Moses denied Reed’s application to reopen discovery. The Court found that Reed had ample opportunity to request the discovery during the established discovery period and had not acted diligently after the Court ruled that he had waived the right to serve additional written discovery requests. The Court also found that Reed had not shown that relevant video footage existed. The Court therefore concluded that Reed failed to establish good cause to reopen discovery.