Still No Good Cause to Reopen Discovery

“Can I successfully move to re-open discovery if…” is one of the most frequent discovery questions I receive. As discussed once before, the “good cause” requirement does actually require good cause. Here is another example.

Defendant moved to reopen discovery in Werbicky v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152915, 2 (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2014), arguing (1) “Plaintiffs and some third parties provided incomplete and/or untimely discovery responses at the close of discovery and (2) Plaintiffs provided untimely initial disclosures at the close of discovery.” Except the moving party had not even propounded discovery in the case until the absolute last possible day to do so. Defendant then complained that the responses it received were insufficient. Defendant’s inability to “‘follow up”‘discovery on these responses is the result of Defendant’s lack of diligence. Defendant fails to provide adequate explanation why it waited to propound discovery until the twilight hours of the discovery period. This lack of diligence is further evidenced by the failure of Defendant to file motions to compel.” This argument did not provide good cause to reopen discovery.

The second argument failed due to inadequate briefing. “Certainly if there was a willful withholding of a significant volume of documents that should be provided as an initial disclosure, that would be very troubling to the Court. The problem with Defendant’s argument, however, is that it rests on its ipse dixit that there was indeed such a violation.” Apparently the motion made generalized allegations but did not specifically describe the documents or the problem. That too was not good cause to reopen discovery.

What does this mean? Do not assume “good cause” can be satisfied by just anything.