Martin Gonzalez v. City of Milwaukee, 791 F.3d 709

Martin Gonzalez, a Caucasian Milwaukee police officer assigned to District 4, was terminated in April 2011 after failing to report for his shift on January 30, 2011 and disobeying a direct order to report; the Fire and Police Commission sustained the discharge after a hearing.
Gonzalez alleges a racially hostile environment in District 4 after Captain O'Leary (African-American) took command, claims disparate scrutiny and discipline of Caucasian officers, and identifies Officer Truman Dodd (African-American) as a comparator who was not disciplined for missing a shift under different circumstances.
Gonzalez sued under Title VII, Section 1981/1983, and the Equal Protection Clause; some defendants were dismissed and the case proceeded against the City of Milwaukee.
During discovery Gonzalez requested a District 4 "climate survey" late (first specific request made May 8, 2013, after written discovery closed), which the City withheld as part of an open investigation. He moved to compel production.
The district court denied the motion to compel (but permitted limited depositions); later it granted summary judgment for the City. Gonzalez appealed only the denial of the motion to compel, conceding his summary-judgment challenge lacked merit on the existing record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Gonzalez's motion to compel production of the District 4 climate survey	The survey is obviously relevant to proof of a racially hostile climate and discriminatory discipline; its production was necessary to oppose summary judgment	The request was untimely (made after written discovery closed), did not tie back to earlier requests, and the survey relates to an open internal investigation into District 4	No abuse of discretion: court affirmed denial because request was late, Gonzalez offered no excuse for delay or diligence, and he failed to show actual and substantial prejudice

James v. Hyatt Regency Chi., 707 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for denial of discovery is abuse of discretion and requires showing of actual and substantial prejudice)
Kalis v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 231 F.3d 1049 (7th Cir. 2000) (discussing appellate review of discovery rulings)
Packman v. Chicago Tribune Co., 267 F.3d 628 (7th Cir. 2001) (late discovery requests may justify denial absent showing of prejudice)