Opinion
02 C 388
January 28, 2003
OPINION
Plaintiff has moved for leave to conduct additional discovery, which is opposed by defendant, who argues that plaintiff has changed her theory of the case (yet again) too late in the game. After reviewing the file, however, I find that plaintiff's request is not the product of changing his theory of the case but rather, the product of information obtained during depositions. Those depositions were conducted in December 2002, and thus, it appears that plaintiff has addressed her concerns in a timely manner. Specifically, plaintiff wishes to conduct discovery regarding the "15/23 report," which that December deposition testimony indicates played a role in her termination.
Plaintiff's theory of the case appears to have been the same, namely that her termination was retaliatory because of her disability. What appears to have changed throughout the course of discovery is plaintiff's knowledge of how that termination decision came about, and I do not find evidence in the record that plaintiff's lack of knowledge about the circumstances of her termination is plaintiff's fault.
Therefore, plaintiff's motion is granted, and she is given leave to conduct additional discovery with respect to the "15/23 report" only. I leave it to the parties to sort out the course of this additional discovery, and if unresolvable conflicts arise, they may bring those matters before this court should such time arise.