Marquez v. Silver

Background

Defendant Douglas Hoffman submitted a letter asking the court to address three discovery issues: Marquez’s allegedly deficient initial disclosures, her failure to respond timely to his discovery requests, and her failure to serve discovery requests of her own before the October 23, 2019 deadline. Hoffman also asked that Marquez be barred from serving discovery requests in the future.

Marquez represented herself. Her response did not deny that she had missed the applicable deadlines. Instead, she argued that Hoffman could not obtain relief through a letter or without a formal motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, Local Rule 7.1, and the court’s individual practices. She also suggested that discovery should be stayed while her motion to dismiss her claims against Hoffman was pending.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Marquez’s challenge to Hoffman’s procedure. It explained that Rule 37 requires a certification that the moving party made a good-faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute without court action, and it found that Hoffman’s letter satisfied that requirement. The court also found no violation of the court’s individual practices, which directed the parties to submit discovery disputes by letter. It stated that a court may excuse a departure from its local rules and called Marquez’s challenge based on those rules frivolous and denied it.

The court also denied any request to stay discovery as unsupported. Marquez had not formally moved for a stay or obtained one, and the court had previously told her that discovery was not stayed while her motion to dismiss was pending. The court further found that Marquez had not provided specific explanations showing why she could not prepare disclosures or discovery requests or respond to Hoffman’s requests. It stated that her cited email correspondence did not justify her failure to participate in discovery.

Ruling

Rather than immediately impose sanctions, Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted Marquez extensions because she was representing herself. The order set these deadlines:

- January 24, 2020, to serve supplemental disclosures correcting deficiencies in her earlier disclosures; - January 31, 2020, to serve initial interrogatories and document requests; and - February 12, 2020, to respond to Hoffman’s document and interrogatory requests.

The court warned that failure to meet these deadlines could result in sanctions, including preclusion from serving Hoffman with further discovery requests, monetary sanctions, or dismissal of Marquez’s case. The court reserved decision on Hoffman’s request for attorney’s fees and stated that he could renew that request if Marquez failed to comply with the order or with another discovery obligation.