Opinion ID: 184616
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: MSI's Motion to Compel

Text: 51 MSI asserts that the district court abused its discretion by denying as untimely MSI's motion to compel Sunmatch to produce evidence regarding Sunmatch's private label sales. MSI contends that if it had had this information for trial it could have proven additional damages arising from Sunmatch's breach of fiduciary duty. 52 The scheduling order governing pretrial procedures provided that discovery had to be completed by April 1, 1995, dispositive motions were due by May 1, and [a]ll other motions were due by September 11. MSI filed its motion to compel on September 11 and the court held it untimely because that was after the close of discovery. We think the court was well within its discretion to interpret its order as requiring a motion to compel discovery to be made within the discovery period.