Portale v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
- Saundra Armstrong
- 4:19-cv-04096
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Portale v. CVS, Judge Corle denied Portale’s motion to compel discovery because it was filed too late.
Arlene Portale and the defendants, including CVS Pharmacy, Inc., were affected. The ruling denied Portale’s request to compel further discovery responses.
What happened
In Portale v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Arlene Portale sought an order requiring the defendants to provide additional discovery responses. The dispute concerned the defendants’ responses to her discovery requests.
The court said the fact-discovery deadline was March 31, 2020, and that a motion to compel had to be filed by April 7 under the local rules. Portale’s discovery letter was filed nearly three months late, and she gave no explanation for the delay.
The court denied Portale’s motion to compel as untimely and disposed of the matters listed in Docket Nos. 24 and 32. United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corle signed the order.
The detailed version
- Portale v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. · No. 4:19-cv-04096
- Saundra Armstrong
- Aug. 13, 2020
Background
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corle to resolve discovery disputes. The court considered a joint discovery-dispute letter concerning the defendants’ discovery responses. The letter was filed under Docket Nos. 24 and 32.
Court’s Analysis
The court treated the filing as Portale’s motion to compel, meaning her request for an order requiring the defendants to provide further discovery. The court held that the motion was untimely. Fact discovery ended on March 31, 2020, and Northern District of California Local Rule 37-3 required a motion to compel to be filed no more than seven days later. The last day to file was therefore April 7, 2020.
The court noted that the discovery letter was filed nearly three months after that deadline. It also stated that Portale offered no explanation for the delay and had not asked the court for additional time before or shortly after the deadline expired.
Disposition
The court denied Portale’s motion to compel. The order stated that it disposed of Docket Nos. 24 and 32.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.