Horvath v. Solar Refrigeration & Appliance Service, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MICHELLE HORVATH CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER: 22-4463 SOLAR REFRIGERATION & APPLIANCE SECTION: “R” (5) SERVICE, INC., ET AL. ORDER Before the Court is the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Appropriate Sanctions (rec. doc. 34) and an attendant motion to expedite (rec. doc. 35) filed by Defendant Solar Refrigeration & Appliance Service, Inc. (“Defendant”). The discovery deadline in this lawsuit was April 2, 2024. (Rec. doc. 28 at 2). Defendant filed this motion to compel on March 28, 2024, seeking to expedite submission of the motionId t.o April 17, 2024, the submission deadline for non-evidentiary dispositive motions. ( ). For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion was filed untimely. Courts generally look to the deadline for completion of discovery in considering [1] whether a discovery motion has been timely filed. “It is axiomatic that to complete See Mollinger-Wilson v. Quizno's Franchise Co. [1] , 122 F. App'x 917, 920, 923 , (10th Cir. 2004) (finding no abuse of discretion in district court's holding that pro se plaintiffs’ motion to compel depositions was untimKaelliys bv.e cCaoulgsaet teh-Pea dlmeaodlilvinee C foo.r discovery had expired, plaintiffs had not employed previous opportunities to take depositions, and plaintiffs had presented inadequate proof that additional depositions were necessary); , 2G3i1n eFtt.3 vd. F1e0d4.9 E, x1p0r5es8s (C7otrhp .Cir. 2000) (finding no abuse of discretion in denying motion to compel filed four months after discovery had closed and after summary judgment motion was filed) (citations omitted); , No. 97-5481, 1998 WL 777998 , at *5 (6th Cir. 1998) (finding no abuse oAfy adliasc-Greetrieonna wv.h Bernis ttohle M tryiearls -cSoquuritb bd eCnoi.ed a motion to compel filed two months after the discovery deadline, because the plaintiff knew of the document at issue long before the discovery deadline) (citation omitted); , 95 F.3d 86, 94 (1st Cir. 1996) (finding no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying “what was clearly AppellanLtas. ’ Cuonrtriaml eMlyg mmto.t, iLo.nL .Cto. vc.o Amxpise Sl udropcluums Iennst. pCoro.duction” where “Appellants waited more than one month after the second extended discovery deadline had elapsed to properly request aFnl yonrnd evr. fHroeamlt hth Ae ddviostcr.,i cItn cc.ourt”); , No. CV 22-2398, 2023 WL 2185981 , at *3 (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2023) (denying discovery motions filed two weeks after discovery deadline); , No. 03-3764, 2005 WL 288989 , at *8 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2005) (holding a motion to compel was uDnatyims eInlyn aWs oprlladiwntiidffe ,f iIlnecd. ivt. sSeovneinat yIn-svisx. days after discovery discovery means that all disputes relative to discovery . . . must be filed and resolved prior [2] to the discovery deadline.” “This means that a motion to compel discovery must be [3] resolved, not just filed, by the discovery deadline.” Under this case law, Defendant’s motion is untimely because Defendant should have known that any dispute raised by the motion would not be resolved by the discovery deadline, two business days after it filed its motion. The non-evidentiary motion [4] submission deadline is not the same as thcoe mdpislceotveedry deadline. The Scheduling Order clearly indicates that all discovery must be by the April 2, 2024 deadline. Given that the pre-trial conference is little more than a month away, the Court must deny in part Defendant’s motion as untimely. However, Defendant also seeks its attorneys’ fees for having had to file an earlier motion to compel. This Court granted that motion and reserved Defendant’s right to file the appropriate pleading to recover its fees. (Rec. doc. 32). Attached to the instant motion is the affidavit of Defendant’s counsel in which she attests that she expended 1.6 hours at a rate of $365.00 per hour on the first motion to compel. (Rec. doc. 34-9). Taking judicial notice of counsel’s experience and the hourly rates in this District, the C ourt finds that a total of $584.00 in fees for a motion to compel is reasonable. Accordingly, Banks v. CBOCS West, Inc. (N.D. Tex. 2006) (denying motion to compel as untimely when filed two weeks after discovery deadline); , No. 01-0795, 2004 WL 723767 , at *2 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2004) (holding motion to compel filed two months after the close of discovery wasW cillelias rvly. Nuenwti mWeolyrl dd eVsapnit eL ibnuess,y I nscch.edule of counsel because counsel was aware of unresolved issues prior to discovery deadline, opposing party would be prejudiced, and dispositive motions would be delayed); , 123 F. Supp. 2d 38P0a,r k4c0r1es t( EB.Dui.l dMeircsh, .L .2L0.C0. 0v). H(doeuns.y Ainugt ha. omf Noteiwon O trole aconms pel discovery filed four months after the discovery d2eadline and five dFaayisr lbeey fov.r eW aa hl-eMaarirntg S otonr ae ss,u Imncm. ary judgment motion). , No. 15-1533, 2017 WL 4156499 , at *2 (E.D. La. Sept. 19L,a .2 C0o1r7r)a l( cMitginmgt . , NGoa. ll1ia4n-0o4 M62a,r i2n0e1 S6e rWv.,L L .2L9.C9. 2v5. 3Sc4h, uamt a*1ch (eEr.D. La. May 24, 23016)). Fairley v. Wal-Ma,r 2t 0S2to3r eWs,L I n2c1.85981, at *3 (citing , No. 17-09868, IT IS ORDERED that the MDoEtiNoInE Dto I NC PoAmRpTe lA SD UisNcoTvIMerEy LYResponses and for AppropIrTia ItSe FSUanRcTtiHonEsR ( OreRcD. dEoRcE. 3D4) is . that thGeR MANotTioEnD t oIN C oPmApReTl Discovery Responses and for Appropriate Sanctions (rec. doc. 34) is to the extent that the Court awardsI TD eIfSe nFdUaRnTt H$5E8R4 O.0R0D inE RfeEeDs expended for the filing of the first motion to cDomISpMeIlS. SED AS MOOT that the motion to expedite (rec. doc. 35) is . 10th April New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of , 2024. MICHAEL B. NORTH UNIT ED ST ATES M AGIST RATE JUDGE