Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01283/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01283-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

27

28

wo

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Knowles, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

U.S. Foodservice, Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-01283-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute. (Doc. 98).

Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendant to supplement its responses to discovery

requests. In interrogatories and a deposition of a witness, Plaintiff asked for the identity of

any person assuming the route duties held by Plaintiff during his employment. Defendant

responded by identifying the drivers who had assumed Plaintiff’s route duties. Plaintiff does

not dispute that Defendant’s response was complete and accurate at the time it was made, as

Defendant named every individual who had assumed Plaintiff’s route duties. But Plaintiff

believes that since that time, another individual has been hired by Defendant to assume

Plaintiff’s former route.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(2)(A) requires a party to supplement an

interrogatory “if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is

incomplete or incorrect . . . .” Defendant argues it has no duty to supplement its response

because its response was complete and accurate when it was made. Defendant argues its

Case 2:08-cv-01283-ROS Document 102 Filed 09/10/10 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

- 2 -

response was accurate at the September 14, 2009 deadline to supplement discovery, and also

when summary judgment briefing was completed on November 23, 2009. Defendant

contends that it “does not have an ongoing, never-ending obligation to supplement its

discovery responses after the close of discovery . . . .” (Doc. 98 at 4). 

There may be circumstances under which supplementation of discovery should be

required after the close of discovery. See Episcopo v. General Motors Corp., 2005 WL

628243, *6 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (“Although Rule 26 does not explicitly provide for

supplementation of disclosures and responses after the close of discovery, we think the

language of Rule 26(e)(2) is broad enough to require supplemental disclosures under certain

circumstances.”). Episcopo did not expressly set forth the circumstances under which

supplemental disclosures would be appropriate, but suggested they would proper when doing

so would be consistent with the goals of discovery, such as narrowing the issues for trial and

preventing unfair surprise. Such circumstances are not present here. Plaintiff concedes

Defendant’s response was accurate at the time it was made. Even if it is true Defendant

recently hired a younger driver to assume Plaintiff’s former route, that would not provide

evidence Plaintiff was discriminated against based on his age in December 2007. In

requesting further discovery, Plaintiff appears to suggest a far-fetched scheme in which

Defendant waited a lengthy time to replace Plaintiff with a younger driver in order to avoid

the appearance of age discrimination. Defendant’s response was accurate when made, and

practical considerations require that there be some deadline. Without a deadline, a party

would have a never-ending obligation to supplement responses. The deadline to supplement

discovery in the Court’s Rule Scheduling Order expired over eight months ago. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring Defendant to supplement

its discovery responses IS DENIED. 

DATED this 10th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01283-ROS Document 102 Filed 09/10/10 Page 2 of 2