Six Dimensions seeks production of documents containing the term “5C.” According to Six Dimensions, Perficient's employees used “5C” as a codename for Six Dimensions when communicating about matters relevant to this lawsuit. Six Dimensions argues that Perficient is obligated under Rule 26(e) to supplement its discovery responses with documents referring to Six Dimensions as “5C.”

Defendants argue that Six Dimensions is seeking to reopen discovery on the eve of trial. Defendants further argue that the motion to compel is untimely because the discovery deadline has passed.

Courts in this circuit have denied late discovery motions where the movant has not shown good cause. See, e.g., Citro-Rey S. de R.L. de C.V. v. L & M Companies, Inc., No. CIV. A. 7:07-154, 2009 WL 1227821, at *2 (S.D. Tex. May 5, 2009). But enforcing a litigant's duty to supplement under Rule 26(e) is distinguishable from compelling production of new categories of discovery after the discovery deadline has passed.

Rule 26(e) requires a party to supplement or correct its discovery responses “in a timely manner” upon learning that they are incomplete or incorrect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). A party's duty to supplement discovery “continues beyond the discovery closing date.” See Knight v. Cooper, No. 5:17-CV-234-OLG, 2018 WL 7350946, at *2 (W.D. Tex. May 29, 2018) (allowing a party to supplement its discovery response after the discovery deadline).

Here, Defendants have the continuing obligation to produce documents responsive to existing discovery requests, consistent with the court's previous orders. Six Dimensions has shown, and Defendants do not dispute, that Perficient's employees used “5C” as a codename for Six Dimensions. (See D.E. 183-2; D.E. 183-3; 183-4; D.E. 183-5.) The fact that Defendants' employees were using code to refer to the Plaintiff does not mean that those communications are not responsive to existing discovery requests. Defendant's cannot skirt their duty to supplement on the basis that their employees may have attempted to hide their communications about the Plaintiff. Defendants have an obligation, even without a motion to compel, to locate and produce any documents that are responsive to any existing discovery requests and consistent with this court's previous orders. Specifically, Defendants must review any documents referring to Plaintiff by the code “5C” and determine whether they are responsive. If so, they should be produced. These are not “new” categories of documents.

On the other hand, the fact that a document contains “5C” does not automatically make it responsive to an existing discovery request. The court is not ordering Defendants to produce anything outside of the discovery requests that have been timely served or otherwise ordered by the court.

*2 Accordingly, the motion to compel is granted in part. Defendants are ORDERED to produce within fourteen days of this order all documents and things that are responsive to existing discovery requests, consistent with existing court orders.

Signed at Houston, Texas on April 25, 2019.