Opinion
No. C08-0010RSL.
February 2, 2009
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's "Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline" (Dkt. # 14) and defendants' "Motion for Entry of a Protective Order" (Dkt. # 25). Plaintiff served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on November 11, 2008, twenty-six days before discovery closed on December 7, 2008. Plaintiff seeks an extension of the discovery deadline to give defendants sufficient time to respond to the discovery requests. Defendants oppose an extension and seek a protective order absolving them of any obligation to respond to the outstanding discovery.
There is no doubt that plaintiff's discovery requests were untimely: because they were served less than thirty days before the Court-ordered close of discovery, defendants' responses were not due until after discovery had ended. The question before the Court is whether there is good cause to extend the discovery deadline. Plaintiff's counsel asserts that she believed the discovery requests at issue had been served on defendants in September 2008, and that it was not until she inquired about the "late" responses that she learned her mistake. The exchange of e-mails between counsel is consistent with her account. Although counsel's mistake is regrettable, it does not appear to evince bad faith or dilatory tactics, the four-day delay is minimal, and defendants will not be surprised by any documents they produce (since they already have them in their possession).
In their motion for protective order, defendants argued only that the discovery requests were untimely. The Court has not considered their arguments, offered for the first time in reply, that the requests are unduly burdensome or that prejudice will result if they are required to respond.
Plaintiff has not, however, justified a universal extension of the discovery deadline. His motion to extend discovery (Dkt. # 14) is therefore GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants shall respond to the outstanding discovery requests on or before February 20, 2009. No additional discovery shall be propounded at this point. Defendants' related motion for protective order (Dkt. # 25) is DENIED.