Opinion
1:19-cv-00946-DAD-HBK
07-29-2021
MARCOS CASEY GUILLEN, III, Plaintiff, v. D. CARRILLO, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
(Doc. No. 29)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel filed on February 26, 2021. (Doc. No. 29, “Motion”). Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant's production of documents in response to his second request for production (“Second RFP”) served on December 29, 2020, as well as his first request for production served on June 29, 2020. (Id. at 1-2). Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion and argues that Plaintiff's Second RFP and the instant Motion are untimely under the deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order. (Doc. 30). In support, Defendant attaches the supporting declaration of attorney Matthew Ross Wilson. (Doc. No. 30-1). Defendant does not directly address Plaintiff's June 29, 2020 request for production in the opposition.
Defendant responded to Plaintiff's Second RFP by objecting to the Second RFP as untimely. Defendant points out that under the Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 19) the parties had 45 days to respond to discovery and the deadline to complete discovery, including the filing of a motion to compel, was February 9, 2021. Because the Second RFP did not afford Defendant 45 days to respond before the discovery deadline expired, the Second RFP was untimely. Similarly, Defendant points out that the instant Motion filed on February 26, 2021 is also untimely because all motions to compel were due no later than February 9, 2021.
The June 9, 2020 Case Management and Scheduling Order set the deadline for discovery and motions to compel as February 9, 2021. (Doc. No. 19 at 2, ¶ 7). Consequently, Plaintiffs Second RFP served on December 29, 2020 was untimely. Although Defendant does not address Plaintiffs discovery served on June 29, 2020, the instant Motion likewise is untimely because it was filed after the February 9, 2021 deadline. “Absent good cause, discovery motions will not be considered if filed after the discovery deadline.” (Id.). Here, the Motion does not set forth any grounds upon which the Court can find good cause.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiffs motion to compel (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED as untimely.