United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
HIGHTOWER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
this Court are Defendant's Partial Motion for a
Protective Order & Partial Motion to Quash
Plaintiff's Corporate Representative Deposition Notice,
filed September 17, 2019 (Dkt. No. 16); and Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel Discovery & Motion for Relief Pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d), filed on September 24, 2019 (Dkt. No.
18), and response and reply briefs related to the latter
motion (Dkt. Nos. 21 and 23). The District Court referred the
above motions and related filings to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge for resolution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule
1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas
Stephanie Shipp brings this suit against Defendant Charter
Communications, Inc., alleging violations under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, and
the Family and Medical Leave Act. Dkt. No. 1. The District
Court entered a Scheduling Order that closed the discovery
period on August 16, 2019. Dkt. No. 14 at ¶ 6. The
Scheduling Order specifically warned the parties that if they
agreed to extend discovery beyond the deadline, the Court
would not intervene “except in extraordinary
parties in this case agreed to extend the discovery deadline
to conduct various depositions, including the deposition of a
corporate representative. See Dkt. No. 18-1. On
September 17, 2019, Defendant filed its Partial Motion for a
Protective Order and Partial Motion to Quash. Dkt. No. 16.
Plaintiff did not file a response. Instead, on September 24,
2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery in which
she ceased pursuing interrogatory responses and the
deposition of a corporate representative,  and now seeks
only to compel Defendant to produce certain documents that
Plaintiff contends are responsive to Requests for Production
served on February 25, 2019 (“the RFPs”). Dkt.
No. 18. Defendant responded to the RFPs on April 24, 2019,
but Plaintiff contends that Defendant's responses and
production are inadequate. Dkt. No. 18 at ¶¶ 20-22.
the Scheduling Order and Local Rules, Plaintiff asks the
Court to order Defendant to supplement its prior responses to
the RFPs and produce several documents after the discovery
deadline. Dkt. No. 18. In support, Plaintiff argues that she
has been attempting to gain compliance from Defendant since
“no later than July 11, 2019;” that the discovery
period continues to run because the corporate representative
deposition has yet to be completed, as stated in the
parties' agreement to extend discovery; and that
production is necessary to allow Plaintiff to have a fair
opportunity to prove her claims and refute Defendant's
defenses. Id. at ¶¶ 3-7.
counsel admits that “it would have been
preferable” to have resolved the instant discovery
disputes earlier, but alleges that Defendant's September
17, 2019 Motion to Quash the corporate representative
deposition made the delay “unavoidable.” Dkt. No.
23 at ¶¶ 1-2. This argument ignores the fact that
Plaintiff's motion pertains to neither the corporate
representative deposition nor Defendant's related motion
to quash, which by Plaintiff's admission was
“rendered moot.” Dkt. No. 18 at 1. Moreover, the
scheduled deposition and Defendant's related motion fell
after the discovery deadline set in the Scheduling Order.
Dkt. No. 14 at ¶ 6. Although the parties agreed to
extend the deadline to allow for the deposition, Local Rule
CV-16 and the Scheduling Order make clear that there will be
no Court intervention after the deadline set by the Court
except in extraordinary circumstances.
Plaintiff's reasons meet the “extraordinary
circumstances” standard. Indeed, Plaintiff urges
precisely the type of arguments that the Local Rules and
Scheduling Order prohibit parties from bringing after
discovery closes. Because Plaintiff filed her Motion to
Compel on September 24, 2019, it is untimely under the
Scheduling Order and the Local Rules and hereby is
also seeks additional time to receive and review the
discovery requested in her Motion to Compel and an extension
of Plaintiff's deadline to respond to any summary
judgment motion. Dkt. No. 18 at 6; Dkt. No. 23 at
¶¶ 17-19. The primary purpose of these requests for
additional time was to review the additional production that
the Court has declined to allow. The request is therefore
moot. Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT
Plaintiff's Motion for Relief Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
reasons stated above, the Court DENIES AS
MOOT Defendant's Partial Motion for Protective
Order & Partial Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Corporate
Representative Deposition Notice (Dkt. No. 16). The Court
DENIES as untimely Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel and DENIES AS MOOT
Plaintiffs Motion for Relief Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(d) (Dkt. No. 18).
Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed Page
Limitation (Dkt. No. 20) is GRANTED. The
parties should proceed on the assumption that the undersigned
will deny any further motion to exceed page limits.
 Accordingly, Defendant's Partial
Motion for Protective Order & Partial Motion to Quash
Plaintiff's Corporate Representative Deposition Notice
(Dkt. No. 16) is DENIED AS MOOT.
 Plaintiff's counsel also states in
part that “his own busy litigation schedule as a
solo-practitioner” did not allow for earlier discovery
efforts, which again fails to meet the “extraordinary
circumstances” standard to justify filing the motion
more than five ...