Doe v. Gooding, Jr.

Background

The defendant applied to compel Jane Doe to provide discovery materials. The request sought documents concerning five subjects, contact information for four individuals identified in her initial disclosures, and amended answers to two interrogatories.

The court’s January 14, 2022 scheduling order required discovery to be completed by the discovery deadline and required discovery motions to be filed promptly. It stated that, absent extraordinary circumstances, discovery motions would not be considered if filed later than 30 days before discovery closed. After several extensions, discovery was scheduled to close on October 31, 2022, making October 1, 2022 the deadline for discovery motions under that order.

The defendant did not raise the disputes at issue by that deadline. The court later noted that discovery had concluded. The defendant first raised the desire to file a motion to compel at a February 27, 2023 conference and filed the application on April 4, 2023, about six weeks before the scheduled June 5, 2023 trial.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the defendant’s request as requiring an extension of the deadline to bring discovery disputes and analyzed whether there was good cause to extend that deadline. It considered whether trial was imminent, whether the request was opposed, whether Jane Doe would be prejudiced, whether the defendant had acted diligently, whether the need for the motion was foreseeable, and whether the requested discovery was likely to produce relevant evidence.

The court found that trial was imminent and that Jane Doe opposed the request. It also found that requiring her to address several broad requests at that stage would prejudice her by diverting time from trial preparation and potentially causing disputes and delay. One request sought notes taken by Jane Doe’s attorney, which could raise protection for attorney work product.

The court found that the defendant could have raised most of the disputes in April or May 2022, when the relevant responses were provided, and that the defendant did not act diligently. The court rejected counsel’s explanations that he had been occupied with other matters, had medical problems, and had failed to remember the deadline. The court assumed, for purposes of analysis, that the requested materials might be relevant, but concluded that this factor did not outweigh the other factors.

The court made an exception for the contact information in Jane Doe’s initial disclosures. It found that the disclosures did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) because they omitted certain witnesses’ addresses and telephone numbers. Listing attorneys who purportedly represented those witnesses was not an authorized substitute, and Jane Doe had not provided a sufficient reason for withholding the information. The court found that the information was relevant and that providing it would not prejudice her.

Disposition

The court denied in part and granted in part the defendant’s application. It denied the requests concerning the documents and amended interrogatory answers, but ordered Jane Doe to provide updated disclosures for the affected witnesses within 14 days, including their addresses and telephone numbers.

The opinion also directed an attorney who had filed a letter without filing a notice of appearance in the case not to make further filings until a notice of appearance was filed.