The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Nita L. Stormes U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING ATC'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS [Doc. No. 78]
This is a patent infringement case involving U.S. Patent No. 6,816,356 ("The '356 patent"). Presidio Components, Inc. ("Presidio") filed suit against American Technical Ceramics Corporation ("ATC") alleging infringement of the '356 patent. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 10.) ATC filed a counterclaim alleging, inter alia, tortious interference with contractual relations. (Doc. No. 10 at pp. 11-12.)
ATC filed the motion presently before the Court to Compel Plaintiff to Comply with the Court's Order and to Produce Documents (herein "Motion to Compel"). (Doc. No. 78.) This motion is appropriate for adjudication on the papers submitted and the Court previously vacated the hearing date. (Doc. No. 146.)
ATC's present Motion to Compel stems from its prior Motion to Compel [Presidio] to Produce Documents and Respond to Interrogatories. (Doc. No. 42.) On November 10, 2008, the Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part ATC's Motion to Compel [Presidio] to Produce Documents and Respond to Interrogatories (herein "Order"). (Doc. No. 58.) The Court ordered Presidio to produce documents responsive to ATC's Requests for Production (herein "RFP") Nos. 52 through 55 by November 12, 2008, and to produce all other required discovery by November 24, 2008. (Id.) ATC asserts that Presidio did not comply with the Court's Order.
In addition to the deadlines set by the Court's Order on ATC's previous motion to compel, the Court's First and Second Amended Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Pretrial Proceedings (herein "Scheduling Order") set the deadline to complete fact discovery for December 5, 2008, and the expert discovery deadline for March 9, 2009. (Scheduling Order, as Modified, Doc. Nos. 37, 65.) The operative Scheduling Order provides, in relevant part:
"Completed means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be initiated in a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for services, notice, and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All disputes concerning discovery shall be brought to the attention of the Magistrate Judge no later than thirty (30) days following the date upon which the event giving rise to the discovery dispute occurred. Counsel shall meet and confer pursuant to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and Local Rule 26.1(a)."
(Scheduling Order, Doc. No. 14 at 2.)
On March 16, 2009-one week after expert discovery closed and on the last day to file all pretrial motions-ATC filed the present Motion to Compel. (Doc. No. 78.) ATC's motion concerns RFPs Nos. 1-3, 7, 8, 69, and Interrogatory ("ROG") no.1. (See id.) The motion is not timely and the record indicates that ATC did not conduct a proper meet and confer before filing the motion. Therefore, the Motion is Denied.
DISCUSSIONS MOTION IS UNTIMELY
The Scheduling Order requires that the parties bring any discovery dispute to the Court's attention within 30 days of the event giving rise to the dispute. The Court ordered Presidio to produce documents responsive to RFPs 1-3, 7, and 8 by November 24, 2008. (See Order at 1.) Therefore, the deadline for filing this motion was December 24, 2008.
In support of its Motion to Compel, ATC explained that since December 5, 2008-the fact discovery cut-off date-it had "been actively communicating through letter correspondence, email, and meet and confer sessions regarding Presidio's non-compliance with the Court's November 10 Order." (Memo Ps&As Mot. to Compel at 1.) Yet, despite its awareness of an ongoing discovery dispute as early as December 5, and the Court's requirement that discovery disputes be brought to its attention no later than 30 days following the date upon which the event giving rise ...