UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JOHN G. YOUNG, )

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-1603-JTM-JEM

v. )

)

SUPERINTENDENT, et al., )

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 66] , filed by John G.

Young, a pro se, prisoner on January 27, 2016. Defendants Fanning, Kimberly Myers, Dishon,

Marandet, Siblisk, Cattin, Ivers, Dallas, Michelle Myers, Mitcheff, and Frye filed a response on

February 8, 2016, and Defendants Sevier and Lemmon filed a response on February 10, 2016. Young

has not filed a reply and the time to do so has passed. In the instant Motion, Young seeks an order

compelling Defendants to respond to the discovery requests he hand delivered to them during his

deposition on November 23, 2015. Defendants argue that they are not obligated to respond because

Young’s requests were untimely. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter

that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevancy is “construed

broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could

bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351

(1978) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)). A party may seek an order to compel

discovery when an opposing party fails to respond to discovery requests or provides evasive or

incomplete responses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). A party objecting to the discovery request bears the

burden of showing why the request is improper. See McGrath v. Everest Nat. Ins. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d

660, 670 (N.D. Ind. 2008). The Court has broad discretion when deciding discovery matters. Thermal

Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning Eng’rs, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837
(7th Cir. 2014); Rennie v. Dalton, 3 F.3d 1100, 1110 (7th Cir. 1993)). 

Young served his discovery requests on Defendants on November 23, 2105, creating a response

date after the December 2, 2015, discovery deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 (responding party must

serve its answers and any objections to interrogatories within 30 days after being served with such

interrogatories); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (responding party must respond to a document request within 30

days after being served with such request). Requests for discovery must be made in sufficient time to

allow the opposing party to respond before the discovery deadline, and when a discovery request is not

filed within that time frame, the opposing party is under no duty to respond. See Shadle v. First Fin.

Bank, N.A., No. 1:09-CV-37, 2009 WL 3787006, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2009); Westbrook v. Archey,

No. 1:05-CV-00057, 2006 WL 545008, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 3, 2006); Shroyer v. Vaughn, No.

1:00-CV-256, 2002 WL 32144316, at *1 (N.D. Ind. July 10, 2002). In this case, Young does not dispute

that he served the discovery requests less than 30 days prior to the discovery deadline, nor does he

provide any explanation for his failure to serve the discovery earlier. Therefore, Defendants have no

duty to respond to Young’s untimely discovery requests. 

As a final matter, Young asserts that he mailed his discovery requests to the Court on November

20, 2015. Because this is a pro se case, all discovery must be filed with the Court pursuant to the Local

Rules. See N.D. Ind. L.R. 26-2(a)(2). However, a review of the docket reveals that Young has not filed

any discovery requests in November of 2015.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 66].

SO ORDERED this 26th day of February, 2016.

s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

Plaintiff, pro se

2