Opinion ID: 2994670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Motion to Extend Discovery

Text: Ms. Kalis next argues that the district court erred in denying her request for additional discovery before it ruled on Colgate’s summary judgment motion. Specifically, Ms. Kalis requested that the district court allow her additional time for discovery to test her theory that Millen Hardware Store sold only Sterno-brand fondue fuel in 1986. She also requested that the district court compel Colgate to answer outstanding discovery requests. ’Our standard ofreview for the district court’s decision not to allow additional pretrial discovery is abuse of discretion.’ FDIC v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, 998 F.2d 404, 407 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing Olive Can Co. v. Martin, 906 F.2d 1147, 1152 (7th Cir. 1990)). Both the timing and substance of the motion lead us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying it. Discovery closed on February 13, 1998. One month later, on March 13, 1998, Colgate filed for summary judgment. By minute entry of March 24, 1998, the district court ordered Ms. Kalis to file her answer brief by May 11, 1998. On June 10, 1998, nearly one month after Ms. Kalis should have filed her answer brief, Ms. Kalis filed her motion to stay briefing and for other relief. Thus, the issue of additional discovery was raised for the first time almost four months after the close of discovery and nearly one month after Ms. Kalis’ response to the summary judgment motion should have been filed. Furthermore, Ms. Kalis did not present any compelling arguments for allowing her to conduct additional discovery. In her motion, Ms. Kalis did not come forward with any reason why the photographs, which had refreshed Mrs. Kalis’ recollection and prompted interest in a new factual theory, had not been found or presented earlier. Furthermore, Ms. Kalis did not come forward with any reason why, in the two and one-half years of discovery, she was not able to garner evidence regarding the types of fondue fuel sold at Millen’s Hardware Store--a theory that did not depend on Mrs. Kalis’ recollection. We cannot fault the district court for denying Ms. Kalis’ motion when no effort was made to present the issue to the court in a timely fashion and when no effort was made to explain why the requested discovery could not have taken place within the original discovery period. Ms. Kalis also intimates that Colgate thwarted her effort to obtain needed information by failing to answer interrogatories and requests for production that she had propounded./5 According to papers filed in the districtcourt, Ms. Kalis claims to have forwarded these discovery requests to Colgate on November 13, 1997. Although she did not receive any responses to these requests, her counsel did not contact Colgate concerning these alleged deficiencies until February 2, 1998, a date that counsel recognized was less than two weeks before the discovery cut off./6 Ms. Kalis did not bring the issue before the district court for another four months when, on June 10, 1998, she filed her motion to stay briefing and for other relief. In the course of her motion, Ms. Kalis’ counsel represented that [t]o plaintiff’s attorney’s knowledge, this court has not cutoff fact discovery, R.47 at 5, and requested that the court compel Colgate to answer the discovery served. The district court took the view that Ms. Kalis’ attempt to secure discovery from Colgate was belated. See R.78 at 4-5 n.2. Indeed, Ms. Kalis did not raise the issue until after the close of discovery, after a motion for summary judgment had been filed, after a briefing schedule had been set, and after her time for response had come and gone. We do not believe that the district court abused its discretion in considering the summary judgment motion, without first compelling discovery, when Ms. Kalis had been so lax in asserting her rights. See Brill v. Lante Corp., 119 F.3d 1266, 1269, 1275 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in entering summary judgment for defendant, despite the defendant’s alleged lack of response to plaintiff’s discovery requests, where plaintiff filed motion to compel three months after close of discovery and three weeks after motion for summary judgment was filed); cf. JOM, Inc. v. Adell Plastics, Inc., 193 F.3d 47, 51 (1st Cir. 1999) (holding that party could not wait until the eve of trial to contest allegedly deficient discovery requests). In addition to Ms. Kalis’ lack of diligence, she failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for bringing a motion to compel. Specifically, Rule 37 requires that a motion to compel must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B). Ms. Kalis’ June 10 motion did not include a Rule 37(a) certification, and, consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying that motion.