Opinion ID: 2977612
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion for discovery sanctions

Text: Plona also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for sanctions, which he filed after UPS produced its lease with BT-OH following the close of discovery. We will assume for the sake of argument that UPS’s reading of Plona’s request for all documents relating to its ownership of the parking lot was unduly narrow. But UPS’s late disclosure that it leased, rather than owned, the parking lot was immaterial with respect to the issue at hand. Plona was therefore not prejudiced by the late production of the lease, particularly because he made no showing that he would have proceeded any differently even if UPS had produced the lease earlier. Moreover, Plona never availed himself of the opportunity to seek leave to file a sur-reply brief or to reopen discovery to address the lease issue, even after UPS had indicated that it would not object to either request. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Plona’s motion for sanctions.