Rae v. Children's National Medical Center, Civil Action No. 2015-0736

Background

Plaintiff Charlesworth Rae sued Children’s National Medical Center and individual employees alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, § 1981, and the D.C. Human Rights Act; portions of the original complaint were previously dismissed and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The court set a discovery deadline of January 27, 2016; post-discovery status hearing occurred February 9, 2017, where Plaintiff’s counsel represented that discovery was essentially complete.
Plaintiff discharged his attorney, proceeded pro se, and filed a motion on March 21, 2017 to reopen discovery for 45 days to depose nine witnesses (including five individual defendants and CNMC’s 30(b)(6) witness) and to resolve outstanding discovery disputes (e.g., requests for admissions and a privilege log).
Defendants opposed reopening, arguing Plaintiff (through his chosen counsel) failed to pursue discovery during the allotted period, that Plaintiff had not served interrogatories or preserved disputes, and that reopening would prejudice Defendants by requiring revision of dispositive filings and incurring additional fees.
The magistrate judge applied the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) “good cause” standard (using the Childers six-factor test), found most factors favored Plaintiff—particularly diligence after he learned of counsel’s failures—and concluded limited reopening was appropriate to allow up to five depositions and to set deadlines for unresolved discovery motions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery should be reopened under Rule 16(b)	Rae argued counsel was negligent; upon learning this he discharged counsel, obtained the status hearing transcript, and promptly moved to reopen to take depositions and resolve disputes	Defendants argued Plaintiff (through his retained counsel) failed to act during the discovery period, abandoned certain discovery requests, and reopening would prejudice them and impose additional fees	Granted in part: limited reopening to June 16, 2017 for up to five depositions; deadlines set for motions to compel and a post-discovery status conference
Whether Plaintiff showed diligence sufficient for “good cause” under Childers	Rae contended his prompt post-hearing actions showed diligence and distinguished his case from those denying relief where plaintiffs had received substantial discovery	Defendants relied on Hussain and the position that a client bears counsel’s failures and thus Rae lacked diligence	Court found Plaintiff sufficiently diligent given he promptly moved after learning of counsel’s failures and had received little discovery
Whether Defendants would be prejudiced by reopening discovery	Rae argued minimal burden and relevance of testimony; depositions were anticipated and central to claims	Defendants argued need to revise near-complete summary judgment work product and incur costs	Court found claimed prejudice speculative and insufficient to deny reopening; editing filings is not undue prejudice
Whether reopening would likely yield relevant evidence	Rae argued depositions and resolving disputes were crucial to substantiating discrimination claims	Defendants did not dispute relevance of witnesses sought	Court found discovery likely to produce relevant evidence and denial might lead to later Rule 56(f) motions, prolonging litigation

Key Cases Cited

Childers v. Slater, 197 F.R.D. 185 (D.D.C. 2000) (articulates six-factor test for "good cause" to modify scheduling orders)
A Love of Food I, LLC v. Maoz Vegetarian USA, Inc., 292 F.R.D. 142 (D.D.C. 2013) (diligence is the primary factor in assessing "good cause" under Rule 16(b))
Hussain v. Nicholson, 435 F.3d 359 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (client may be charged with counsel's discovery shortcomings where plaintiff had received substantial discovery already)
United States v. Sci. Applications Int'l Corp., 301 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2013) (absence of a set trial date indicates trial is not imminent when evaluating modification requests)