Opinion
No. 96 C 1122
May 24, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 15, 2002, Magistrate Judge Brown ordered the City to produce various information on a very abbreviated schedule. The City contends that it did so; plaintiff disagrees. Even so, the City objects, contending that the time allowed was too short, less than its time to object, and that the sanction, inability to use later-found material at trial, was not one Judge Brown could impose.
We overrule the objections, but with the observation that we believe the City misunderstood Judge Brown's ruling. It was an abbreviated time, but at least one classification was relevant to a deposition scheduled shortly thereafter, and fact-discovery in the 1996 case was due to close soon thereafter. From our review of the transcript the material sought had been requested far earlier. With the exception of financial ratings, the City had attempted to comply and had produced what it had found — and it had not found much of what was requested. Judge Brown in effect pointed out that there comes a time when "investigation continues" just will not do and that the City had had a great deal of time to find whatever was out there. And she also pointed out that production has to be related to the orderly conclusion of discovery. Finally, she stated the obvious: materials not produced when required cannot suddenly turn up for use at trial. If the City should, prior to trial, turn up something, it can then seek to use that material if it can show good cause for the failure to produce it earlier. But that we leave to another day.