throbber
Case 6:13-cv-06620-DGL-JWF Document 75 Filed 11/17/17 Page 1 of 5
`Case 6:13-cv-06620-DGL-JWF Document 75 Filed 11/17/17 Page 1 of 5
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK”
`
`NZOLA DE MAGALHAES
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`l3—CV—6620
`
`ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`
`et a1,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Relevant Background
`
`The original scheduling order in this case was issued on July
`
`9, 2014 (Docket Q 17).
`
`It has been extended at least eight times
`
`on consent of both parties.
`gee Docket ## 22, 23, 24, 27, 31, 32,
`37, 38. The last amended scheduling order-(Docket # 38) was issued
`
`on June 5, 2016.
`
`By consent of both parties that Order extended
`
`both the deadline to complete discovery and the deadline to file
`
`motions to compel to September 15, 2016.
`
`After the last joint request
`
`to extend deadlines was issued
`
`by the Court, plaintiff
`
`sought additional extensions.
`
`These
`
`extensions were strenuously opposed by the defendants as untimely
`
`and without demonstrated good cause. Plaintiff's first motion to
`
`extend discovery was filed on September 21, 2016.
`
`gee Docket #
`
`40. Despite defendants’ opposition,
`
`the Court granted plaintiff
`
`an additional three months to complete discovery but also Ordered
`
`“that
`
`absent
`
`express
`
`agreement
`
`by all
`
`counSel,
`
`no
`
`further
`
`extensions of these deadlines will be granted by this Court.” See
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-06620-DGL-JWF Document 75 Filed 11/17/17 Page 2 of 5
`Case 6:13-cv-06620-DGL-JWF Document 75 Filed 11/17/17 Page 2 of 5
`
`Docket # 46.
`
`The new discovery deadline was January 6, 2017.
`
`No
`
`extension was sought or granted as to motions to compel discovery.
`
`'-A week before
`
`the extended discovery deadline expired,
`
`plaintiff filed another motion to extend discovery. Docket # 47.
`
`The defendants again opposed, arguing that
`
`the plaintiff lacked
`
`good cause for yet another extension and that plaintiff’s counsel
`should not be permitted at
`this late date to depose additional
`
`witnesses.
`
`The Court held an_extended hearing on April 10, 2017
`
`and expressed its frustration at the need to extend discovery once
`
`again. The Court required the parties to confer off the record in
`
`an-effort
`
`to identify exactly what plaintiff believed she had
`
`demanded and what had not yet been produced by defendants. After
`
`conferring,
`
`the parties reported that plaintiff would review all
`
`discOvery materials and finalize document discovery in this case.
`
`Again, over the objection of
`
`the defendants,
`
`the Court granted
`
`rplaintiff’s motion to extend discovery for one month in order to
`
`allow completion of document review and also allowed plaintiff to
`
`conduct the deposition.of_two witnesses 4 Margaret Bailey and Renee
`
`Baker.
`
`gee Docket # 54. During the hearing,
`
`the Court repeatedly
`
`advised counsel that “the time for discovery is over.”
`
`The May lZflldeadline came and went.
`
`On July 18, 2017, over
`
`two months after the discovery deadline passed.and ten months after
`
`the last deadline for motions to compel had expired, plaintiff
`
`filed the motion to compel now before the Court.
`
`See Docket # 58.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-06620-DGL-JWF Document 75 Filed 11/17/17 Page 3 of 5
`Case 6:13-cv-06620-DGL-JWF Document 75 Filed 11/17/17 Page 3 of 5
`
`Plaintiff
`
`argues
`
`that defendants
`
`failed to provide
`
`complete
`
`responses as part of their answers to plaintiff’s various discovery
`
`demands,
`
`some of which were informally “served” by letters dated
`
`
`after the May 12, 2017 discovery deadline.
`
`See Exhibits “L” andr
`
`“P” annexed to Docket # 59.
`
`In addition, plaintiff seeks to compel
`
`more complete answers to iterirst Request for Admissions dated
`
`May 12, 2017 (the last day of discoveryl but apparently not mailed
`to defendants until May l7, 2017
`(after discovery had closed).
`
`§§§ Exhibit “0” annexed to Docket
`
`# 63.
`
`Defendants obviously
`
`oppose all aspects of plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, arguing again
`
`that plaintiff’s motion is untimely,
`
`there is no good cause for
`
`her untimeliness, and the documents sought are not discoverable.
`
`gee Docket # 63. Defendants also seek attorney fees and cost for
`
`having to respond to what
`
`they believe to be an untimely and
`
`meritless motion.
`
`Id.
`
`Discussion
`
`The Court believes the record in this case will reflect a
`
`concerted effort by the Court to accommodate plaintiff and provide
`
`ample opportunity to complete discovery in this case. Plaintiff
`
`deserves her day in Court. But so do the defendants. There comes
`
`a point where a. party’s lack of diligence ‘in. prosecuting or
`
`defending a case not only adversely impacts the litigants’ rights,
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-06620-DGL-JWF Document 75 Filed 11/17/17 Page 4 of 5
`Case 6:13-cv-06620-DGL-JWF Document 75 Filed 11/17/17 Page 4 of 5
`
`but also impairs the fair and efficient administration of justice.
`
`We are at that point in this case.
`
`Plaintiff’s motion to compel
`
`is untimely and does not set
`
`forth good cause as to why it could not and should not have been
`
`filed sooner. Despite the untimeliness of plaintiff’s motion and
`
`lack of demonstrated good cause,
`
`the Court endeavored to go through
`
`each category of documents sought by plaintiff, and,
`
`to the extent
`
`appropriate given the posture of the case, directed defendants to-
`
`.supplement
`
`their production if
`
`responsive documents existed.
`
`Specifically,
`
`the Court directed defense counsel to produce:
`
`(1)
`
`any information in the database_utilized by Renee Baker concerning
`
`defendants’ efforts to recruit plaintiff as an employee of RIT;
`
`(2) copies of any written.RIT Affirmative Action Plan for the years
`
`2010, 2011 and 2012;
`(3) any reports or documents created or used
`by Renee Baker in a presentation to BIT’s Board of Directors that
`
`mentions or references plaintiff;
`
`(4) a complete copy of the NSF
`
`Advance Grant; and (5) any documents describing or implementing
`
`the Future Faculty Program utilized by RIT in the recruitment and
`
`employment of plaintiff. All other aspects of plaintiff’s motion
`
`to compel are denied as untimely and outside the scope of discovery
`
`permitted in the now expired discovery deadline Order
`
`(Docket #
`
`54). Plaintiff’s motion to compel more complete answers to her
`
`First Request for Admissions is denied as untimely. Defendants’
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-06620-DGL-JWF Document 75 Filed 11/17/17 Page 5 of 5
`Case 6:13-ch-06620-DGL-JWF Document 75 Filed 11/17/17 Page 5 of 5
`
`motion for attorney fees and costs associated with responding to
`
`plaintiff’s motion is denied.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the reasons set forth on the record during the April 10,
`
`2017 hearing and the November l7, 2017 hearing, plaintiff's motion
`
`to compel
`
`(Docket # 58)
`
`is denied except as set forth in this
`
`Decision and Order. Defendants shall provide any documents
`
`in
`
`their control or possession that are required by this Order to be
`
`produced_no later than December 29, 2017. DiscoVery is closed.
`
`Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than March 30, 2018.
`
`No extension of the foregoing dates will be granted by this Court.
`
`All further proceedings in this case shall be before Judge Larimer.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`JONATHAN W. FELDMAN
`
`rd States Magistrate Judge
`
`Dated:
`
`November 17, 2017
`
`_Rochester, New York
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket