Williams v. Condensed Curriculum International, Inc
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-05292
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Williams v. Condensed Curriculum International, Judge Illman denied Williams’s late request to compel discovery because it was untimely and improperly filed.
Ryan Williams’s request for additional discovery from Condensed Curriculum International was denied; any request to reopen discovery would have to be made before the District Judge.
What happened
In Williams v. Condensed Curriculum International, Ryan Williams asked the court to order the company to produce certain Salesforce, QuickBooks, and attribution reports. He said the company had represented that it would provide documents needed to calculate commissions, so he had not earlier sought an order compelling production.
The court denied the request. Fact discovery had already closed, Williams had not timely filed a motion to compel, and he did not explain why he could not have done so before the deadline. The court also said that a unilateral “Notice” was not the proper way to request discovery relief.
Judge Illman further ruled that he lacked authority to order discovery that was not the subject of a timely motion because doing so would require changing the District Judge’s discovery deadline. The order stated that Williams would need to ask the District Judge to reopen discovery.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Condensed Curriculum International, Inc · No. 4:20-cv-05292
- Yvonne Rogers
- Jan. 18, 2022
Background
Ryan Williams filed a document titled “Notice” seeking an order compelling Condensed Curriculum International to produce four categories of information, including certain Salesforce reports, QuickBooks reports, and attribution reports. Williams asserted that the company had represented before an earlier joint submission that it would produce documents allowing him to calculate commissions, and that he therefore had not moved to compel responses to several discovery requests.
The District Judge had extended the fact-discovery cutoff twice, ultimately setting it for December 17, 2021. The court had also previously decided the parties’ pending discovery dispute. After Williams later raised concerns that assurances about producing additional documents had misled him, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer and, if necessary, file a joint letter brief explaining why Williams had been unable to file a timely motion to compel.
Court’s Analysis
Williams did not follow that instruction. Instead, he filed the unilateral Notice nearly a month after the fact-discovery cutoff. The court found that the Notice did not coherently explain why Williams could not have filed a motion to compel before December 17, 2021, or within the seven-day period allowed by the local rules.
The court stated that the undersigned magistrate judge did not have authority to order discovery that was not already the subject of a timely motion to compel, because doing so would effectively require changing the District Judge’s scheduling order. The court also explained that, even if it had that authority, Williams had not shown the diligence or good cause needed for the late request. A Notice was not an authorized method for seeking an order compelling discovery under the applicable local rules, the court’s general standing order, or its earlier instructions.
Disposition
The court denied Williams’s request to compel discovery as untimely and procedurally improper. It stated that Williams would need to file a request to reopen discovery before the District Judge if he wished to pursue the matter. Judge Robert M. Illman signed the order as the United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.