UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

RAGEN H. HATCHER, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:13-CV-353-PRC

)

GARY COMMUNITY SCHOOL )

CORPORATION, )

 Defendant. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Extend Discovery [DE 87],

filed by Plaintiff on July 2, 2016.

The discovery deadline was May 27, 2016. On June 7, 2016, eleven days after the expiration

of the deadline, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend Discovery. The Court denied the motion because

Plaintiff made no attempt to demonstrate good cause for the requested extension of time or

excusable neglect for filing the motion after the expiration of the deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).

In the instant motion, Plaintiff asks for an extension of the discovery deadline because she

served discovery requests on Defendant on May 21, 2016, and is still waiting for responses from

Defendant. The explanation does not constitute good cause for an extension of the discovery

deadline because Plaintiff’s discovery requests were untimely. Discovery requests must be served

sufficiently in advance of the discovery deadline to allow a response within the discovery deadline.

See Gordon v. Northeastern REMC, No. 1:02-CV-171, 2003 WL 21919179, at *2 (N.D. Ind. June

2, 2003) (“Discovery requests not filed in sufficient time to allow the opponent to respond within

the discovery period are untimely and the opponent is under no duty to comply.”); see also Martin

v. Fort Wayne Police Dep’t, No. 1:11CV347, No. 2014 WL 1047801, at *13 n. 16 (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)); Nowakowski v. Rounders Stadium Grill, No.

2:07-CV-186, 2008 WL 5273814, at *1-2 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 18, 2008); NIPSCO v. Colorado

Westmoreland, Inc., 112 F.R.D. 423, 424 (N.D. Ind. 1986) (“Common sense dictates that any

requests for discovery must be made in sufficient time to allow the opposing party to respond before

the termination of discovery.”). The discovery deadline is the last day to complete discovery, not

the last day to initiate it. Plaintiff offers no explanation for why she waited until six days before the

discovery deadline to serve discovery requests. In addition, Plaintiff has not offered any showing

of excusable neglect for filing either the first motion or the instant second motion after the expiration

of the discovery deadline.

The Court again notes that, on April 2, 2015, the Court denied Defendant’s Rule 41(b)

Motion to Dismiss, allowing the case to proceed on the merits despite Plaintiff’s failure to show

good cause why the case should not be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s procedural errors. See (Docket

entry 59). Because of delays caused by “Plaintiff’s repeated, substantial irregularities as to form and

Rules requirements,” this case will be three years old in September. Plaintiff’s delay in serving

discovery requests on Defendant and the delay in filing the instant motion are further examples of

failure to follow the requirements of the Rules. Trial is set for January 9, 2017. Defendant timely

filed a Motion for Summary Judgment by the July 1, 2016 deadline. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Extend Discovery [DE 87].

In the June 8, 2016 Order, the Court noted that the caption of Plaintiff’s motion incorrectly

identified two defendants—Gary Community School Corporation and School Board of Trustees of

the Gary Community School Corporation—when there is only one defendant—Gary Community

School Corporation. The Court warned that “[a]ll future filings must contain a correct caption.”
Nevertheless, the caption of the instant motion once again incorrectly lists two defendants. Going

forward, the Court will sua sponte strike any document with an incorrect caption filed by Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED this 6th day of July, 2016.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT