Opinion ID: 166819
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery

Text: 36 Plaintiff also appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to compel discovery, filed October 12, 2004. 8 The discovery in question sought the criminal records of the Love County defendants, Russell, Lee, Lawson, Hughes, Knowles, Grisham, and Beavers. We review a district court's ruling denying a motion to compel for an abuse of discretion. Cummings v. GMC, 365 F.3d 944, 952 (10th Cir.2004). Under this standard, we will not disturb a trial court's decision absent a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances. Id. at 953 (quotation marks omitted). 37 It is clear from the district court docket sheet that plaintiff filed his motion to compel well after the close of discovery and only two days before the pre-trial conference. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's late motion.