Pingree v. University of Utah
2:20-cv-00724
D. UtahJun 5, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Rita Florian Pingree filed two Short Form Discovery Motions seeking further discovery responses from Defendant Caroline Milne and the University of Utah.
- The requests concerned responses to specific requests for production and interrogatories from the second and third sets of discovery, sent in January 2022 and April 2023, with responses initially received in June 2023 and supplemental responses in July 2023.
- The fact discovery period closed on September 2, 2023; Plaintiff did not file a motion to reopen discovery or extend deadlines.
- Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter two months after the close of fact discovery and filed the motions several months later, in February and March 2024, well after applicable deadlines.
- Plaintiff argued various justifications for delay, including the complexity of issues and time for new counsel to adjust, but no formal request for additional time was made.
- The court held a hearing on the motions, found the motions untimely under both Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and DUCivR 37-1(b)(2)(C), and denied both motions along with Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Motions | Delays were due to patience, complexity, and counsel change | Motions were not timely and deadlines were missed | Motions untimely; denied. |
| Good Cause for Delay | Complex issues, pending discovery, outside commitments | No good cause; Plaintiff delayed unreasonably | No good cause found. |
| Requirement for Prompt Written Notice | November meet-and-confer letter addressed old issues | Letter was late and did not qualify as 'prompt' notice | Not prompt; untimely. |
| Entitlement to Attorney Fees | Fees appropriate if motion granted | Motion is untimely and unjustified | Fees denied as motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Centennial Archaeology, Inc. v. AECOM, Inc., 688 F.3d 673 (10th Cir. 2012) (Affords district courts broad discretion in determining the timeliness of discovery motions.)
- Butler v. Benson, 193 F.R.D. 664 (D. Colo. 2000) (Party cannot ignore available discovery remedies for months.)
