United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
CONNIE REYES and DANIEL V. REYES, Parents of S.R. a minor child, Plaintiffs,
WILLIAM J. RUCKER, DDS, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
PAUL R. CHERRY, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Compel Deposition of Nadira Ahmed, MD [DE 53], filed by Defendant William J. Rucker, DDS on November 3, 2014. Plaintiffs have not filed a response, and the time to do so has passed.
The discovery deadline was August 29, 2014. On August 20, 2014, just nine days before the close of discovery, counsel for Defendant sent correspondence to counsel for Plaintiff requesting the deposition of S.R.'s family physician, Dr. Ahmed.
Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 30-1(b) provides: "Attorneys must schedule depositions with a least 14-days' notice, unless opposing counsel agrees to shorter notice or the court orders otherwise." N.D. Ind. L.R. 30-1(b). In addition, discovery must be initiated sufficiently in advance of the discovery deadline so that it can be completed before the discovery deadline. See Martin v. Fort Wayne Police Dep't, No. (N.D. Ind. Mar. 18, 2014) (citing Shadle v. First Fin. Bank, N.A., No. 1:09-CV-37, 2009 WL 3787006, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2009) (collecting cases refusing to require opposing parties to respond to discovery requests served late in the discovery period)); NIPSCO v. Colorado Westmoreland, Inc., 112 F.R.D. 423, (N.D. Ind. 1986) (holding that discovery must be completed within the time established by the court, which includes serving requests for written discovery with sufficient time for the responses to be filed within the discovery period).
Defendant has offered no explanation why this deposition was not requested earlier in the discovery process to allow sufficient time for the deposition to be noticed under the Local Rule and to be taken prior to the close of discovery.
Because Defendant's request for the deposition was not timely, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion to Compel ...