Opinion
CIVIL 1:22-CV-00094
05-31-2023
NURA A. ZIADEH, Plaintiff, v. WALMART, INC., Defendant
AMENDED ORDER
JENNIFER P. WILSON, United States District Judge.
AND NOW, on this 31st day of May, 2023, following review of Plaintiff's discovery dispute letter with attachments, Doc. 33, Defendant's responsive letter with attachments, Doc. 34, Plaintiff's letter seeking correction of the court's order, Doc. 36, Defendant's responsive letter, Doc. 37, and Plaintiff's reply letter, Doc. Doc. 38, and having considered the facts and arguments set forth therein, the court enters this order amending the order at Doc. 35 (amendments noted in italics):
1. Plaintiff's request for a conference to address the dispute is DENIED, as the parties have adequately set forth their positions in their respective letters and attachments.
2. Plaintiff's request to reopen discovery and compel Defendant to produce additional video footage and/or additional information regarding video footage is DENIED. The court finds that the fact discovery deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated
good cause to reopen discovery. Plaintiff's failure to raise a discovery dispute regarding the video footage produced in discovery until after dispositive motions were filed does not constitute good cause to reopen discovery. Additionally, to the extent that that Defendant was obligated to supplement its prior production of a video excerpt with the full video footage, it has complied with that obligation. To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking additional information relating to the video footage that Defendant produced, Plaintiff's request is untimely because discovery closed in this case on February 28, 2023. See Doc. 21.
3. Plaintiff's request for the court to amend/rescind the amended case management order, Doc. 32, is DENIED. The court's review of the docket, letters, and attachments reveals that the letters submitted by defense counsel, Docs. 30 & 31, accurately represented the parties' agreement at that time regarding an extension of the remaining deadlines for this case. The court notes that no objection was filed by Plaintiff's counsel to Defendant's letters indicating that an agreement was reached until after an unrelated discovery dispute arose. Plaintiff's counsel has not otherwise raised a reason to revisit the amended case management order, Doc. 32.
4. The court has resolved the issues raised in Plaintiff's original discovery dispute letter, Doc. 33, and Plaintiff's request for corrections, Doc. 36. There shall be no conference call with the court or further filings from the parties regarding the matters raised in Plaintiff's letters regarding the instant discovery dispute. s/Jennifer P. Wilson