Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00158/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00158-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332ed Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

1 

16-cv-0158-WQH-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KARMEN SMILEY, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

HOLOGIC, INC., 

 Defendant.

 Case No.: 16-cv-0158-WQH-MDD 

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 

EXTEND DEADLINE TO 

ADDRESS DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL 

RESPONSES 

[ECF NO. 67] 

 Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Extend the Deadline to Address 

Discovery Dispute Re: Supplemental Discovery Responses filed on August 1, 

2017. (ECF No. 67). The Joint Motion is GRANTED IN PART as provided 

below. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Rule 26(e)(1)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P., governs supplementation of disclosures 

and responses. It provides: 

Case 3:16-cv-00158-WQH-MDD Document 68 Filed 08/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

16-cv-0158-WQH-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a) – 

or who has responded to an interrogatory, request for 

production, or request for admission – must 

supplement or correct its disclosure or response . . . in a 

timely manner if the party learns that in some 

material respect the disclosure or response is 

incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or 

corrective information has not otherwise been made 

known to the other parties during the discovery process 

or in writing.... 

Should a party fail to timely supplement a disclosure or response, Rule 

37(c)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides the available remedies, as follows: 

If a party fails to provide information or identify a 

witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is 

not allowed to use that information or witness to 

supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, 

unless the failure was substantially justified or is 

harmless. 

Additional sanctions also are available for failing timely to supplement a 

disclosure or response. See Rule 37(c)(1)(A)-(C). 

DISCUSSION 

 Discovery in this case closed on September 1, 2016. (ECF No. 10 ¶ 3). 

The time to bring before the Court any disputes regarding the adequacy of 

discovery responses is long past. According to the Joint Motion, Plaintiff has 

provided Defendant with a number of supplemental responses and Defendant 

has requested that Plaintiff provide further supplemental responses to 

previously served discovery. See Joint Motion at 2 (ECF No. 67 at 2). The 

parties appear to be meeting and conferring regarding the supplemental 

responses but seek leave of Court to bring any disputes regarding 

supplemental responses before the Court no later than September 15, 2017. 

Id. at 2-3. 

Case 3:16-cv-00158-WQH-MDD Document 68 Filed 08/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

16-cv-0158-WQH-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Supplemental responses or disclosures are a one-way street: the burden 

is placed upon the producing party to supplement responses or disclosures in 

a timely manner upon finding that their initial responses or disclosures are 

materially incomplete or inaccurate. See Rule 26(e)(1)(A). The receiving 

party cannot compel supplemental disclosures or responses nor is there a 

procedural vehicle for the receiving party to challenge the sufficiency of a 

supplemental disclosure. The receiving party is limited to challenging 

supplemental disclosures or responses as untimely. See Rule 37(c)(1). The 

producing party carries the burden of convincing the Court that the 

supplemental disclosures or responses are timely and, if not, the untimeliness 

is substantially justified or harmless. Id.

 The sufficiency of a supplemental response or disclosure only comes into 

play if a party seeks to introduce evidence that the other party claims was 

not previously disclosed in response to or in a supplement to a previous 

discovery request. That is a matter for the district court to determine in 

considering whether that evidence must be excluded under Rule 37(c)(1). 

CONCLUSION 

 The Joint Motion is GRANTED IN PART. The parties may bring 

before this Court any disputes regarding the timeliness of supplemental 

disclosures or responses within thirty (30) days of the service of the 

supplemental disclosures or responses. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 2, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00158-WQH-MDD Document 68 Filed 08/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3