`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
`
`