Category: Limits On Discovery

Failing to Calendar The Discovery Cutoff Date Is Not Excusable Neglect

Federal courts are increasingly unwilling to tolerate poor scheduling by lawyers. Here, one of the Defendants apparently forgot or neglected to take the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert during the discovery period. That failure to take the deposition proved costly as the Court refused to extend discovery to accommodate¬†plaintiff. Additionally, the plaintiff had already filed its motion for summary judgment.

Here, the sole reason that Defendant Dalzell did not timely schedule Mr. Semore’s deposition is that counsel “failed to calendar” the January 20, 2017 deadline. (Doc. 58, p. 2). However, Defendant Dalzell was fully aware of Mr. Semore’s timely disclosed expert report and apparently even addressed it at the mediation on December 20, 2016. (Doc. 60, p. 4). In addition, even though counsel forgot to calendar the January 20, 2017 deadline, the summary judgment deadline was rapidly approaching. Thus, Defendant Dalzell should have been diligent in completing discovery in anticipation of that deadline. Therefore, Defendant Dalzell cannot demonstrate diligence in pursuing discovery. See, e.g., Rumbough v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-811, 2013 WL 11325232, *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2013); Homes & Land Affiliates, LLC v. Homes & Loans Magazine LLC, No. 6:07-cv-1051, 2008 WL 4186989, *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2008).

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant Dalzell has not demonstrated good cause to extend the discovery deadline.

District Court Blocks Discovery of Plaintiff’s Tax Returns

Hastings v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB, Dist. Court, D. Maryland 2013 – Google Scholar.

This is a modification case. The plaintiff, Brian Hastings, thought he had an agreement with OneWest Bank to modify his mortgage. He alleges that OneWest reneged on the modification.

These cases are not unique. Getting banks to agree to modifications can take years of work and patience. It is common for the bank to change its mind about the modification, even after paperwork has been issued.

The unusual part of this case is that the Bank requested Hasting’s tax returns in discovery.

The court denied the motion to compel on the ground that the tax returns were not relevant. The Court allowed other discovery as to Hastings’ financial condition.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.