United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
R. CHERRY MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant Local 395's
Motion to Compel D5 Iron Works, Inc.'s and Richard
Lindner's Compliance with Local 395's Amended Second
Set of Interrogatories and Amended Document Request [DE 126],
filed on July 18, 2017. Plaintiffs D5 Iron Works, Inc.
(“D5”) and Richard Lindner filed a response on
July 31, 2017. Defendant Local 395 Ironworkers, AFL-CIO
(“the Union”) filed a reply on August 3, 2017. In
the motion, the Union asks the Court to compel D5 and Lindner
to provide answers to the Union's Amended Second Set of
Interrogatories and to respond to the Amended Document
April 10, 2017, the Union served its Second Set of
Interrogatories on D5 and Lindner.
Second Set of Interrogatories included the following
The First Amended Complaint relates allegations of an
incident occurring on January 6, 2016 at 232 1st Street,
Dyer, IN (¶¶ 15-31). Unless otherwise stated in
these Interrogatories all inquires [sic] that relate to this
incident will refer to those allegations as the
“January 6th Incident.”
(Mot. Ex. 1 ¶ 12, ECF No. 126-1). In the Amended
Complaint, paragraphs 15 through 17 allege events that
occurred on January 6, 2016, and paragraphs 18 through 31
allege events that occurred on January 7, 2016.
Union contends that D5's and Lindner's answers to
Interrogatory Nos. 1 through 6 are incomplete because they
address only the events of January 6, 2016, and not the
events of January 7, 2016. The Union represents that it
learned that the answers only addressed the one day's
events on June 21, 2017, at the deposition of Lindner.
Plaintiffs' counsel indicated that the answers were
complete to the interrogatories as asked and that the answers
would not be supplemented to include answers responsive to
alleged events of January 7, 2016. Later on June 21, 2017,
the Union served its Amended Second Set of Interrogatories on
D5 and Lindner. By operation of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 33(b)(2), the due date for the answers to the
interrogatories was July 21, 2017. The fact discovery
deadline was July 17, 2017. The Union did not move for an
extension of the fact discovery deadline.
Union argues that D5 and Lindner should be compelled to
answer the interrogatories as to the events of January 7,
2016, because the definition of “January 6th
Incident” cites to paragraphs of the Amended Complaint
that include allegations of events occurring on January 7,
2016. This argument is unpersuasive. The definition
delineates the scope of the “January 6th
Incident” as “occurring on January 6th,
2016.” The cited paragraphs from the Amended Complaint
include allegations of events occurring on January 6th, 2016.
The Second Set of Interrogatories, before their amendment,
did not require D5 and Lindner to provide answers regarding
the alleged events of January 7, 2016.
Union next argues that D5 and Lindner should be compelled to
answer the Amended Second Set of Interrogatories, which
altered the definition quoted above to include the alleged
events of January 7, 2016. However, the case law on this
point is clear: “any requests for discovery must be
made in sufficient time to allow the opposing party to
respond before the termination of discovery.” N.
Ind. Pub. Servs. Co. v. Colo. Westmoreland, Inc., 112
F.R.D. 423, 424 (N.D. Ind. 1986). As noted above, the Union
did not ask for an extension of the fact discovery deadline.
The amended interrogatories were served with insufficient
time for a response before the deadline, and the Union's
request for the Court to compel answers to the amended
interrogatories is denied.
the deposition of Lindner on June 21, 2017, the Union's
counsel emailed Plaintiffs' counsel to request
supplemental documents in light of the deposition.
Plaintiffs' counsel indicated that a formal discovery
request was required. The Union served an initial document
request on June 22, 2017, and its Amended Document Request on
June 26, 2017. By operation of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 34, the due date for production of the documents
was July 26, 2017, which was after the close of fact
discovery on July 17, 2017. The Amended Document Request,
like the Amended Second Set of Interrogatories, is untimely
because it was not served with sufficient time remaining for
a response before the close of discovery., The request for an
order compelling responses to the Amended Document Request is
Union contends that the requested documents should have been
produced pursuant to previous document requests. However, the
Union's remedy for any failure by D5 and Lindner to
produce documents responsive to previous requests does not
lie in filing a motion to compel based on an untimely
discovery request. This Opinion and Order only addresses the
request to compel answers to the Amended ...