*1 This matter is before the court on the Motion to Compel Against University of Notre Dame [DE 128] filed by the plaintiff, Oliver Collins, Ph.D., on September 22, 2015. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

The plaintiff, Oliver Collins, Ph.D., was a tenured professor of Electrical Engineering at Notre Dame. Numerous federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), supported Dr. Collins's scientific research. Notre Dame discovered that Dr. Collins had used grant money from NSF to purchase hundreds of thousands of dollars of camera equipment for his personal use. After suspending Dr. Collins with pay, Notre Dame terminated his employment in June 2010. Dr. Collins then initiated this action alleging that Notre Dame breached his employment contract.

During the past five years, this court has reopened discovery three times and stayed discovery pending Dr. Collins's criminal case. Ultimately, Dr. Collins plead guilty to using grant funds improperly. In February 2015, this court allowed Dr. Collins to amend his complaint to add a claim for constructive fraud. The constructive fraud claim alleged that Dr. Collins relied on Notre Dame's false statements regarding federal grants, which led to his termination and criminal conviction. On February 11, 2015, this court then reopened discovery a third time but limited its scope to the constructive fraud claim. Additionally, this court set a discovery deadline of July 31, 2015.

On March 20, 2015, Dr. Collins served interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents on Notre Dame. On April 20, 2015, Notre Dame responded and indicated that it would not answer many of the requests. On May 8, 2015, Dr. Collins sent Notre Dame a letter identifying deficiencies in the University's responses. On June 5, 2015, Notre Dame responded to the deficiency letter by indicating that the requests were improper, but it offered to produce some documents to resolve the dispute. The parties communicated via letter and phone call in June and July 2015 but were unable to resolve this dispute. Dr. Collins then filed his motion to compel nearly two months after the discovery deadline.

Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules impose a deadline to file motions to compel. Kruse, Inc. v. Hogan, 2011 WL 3747353, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 24, 2011). However, “motions to compel filed after the close of discovery are almost always deemed untimely.” Kruse, 2011 WL 3747353 at *1 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Courts may excuse an extended delay when the party offers a reasonable and persuasive justification for the untimeliness. Longs v. Lebo, 2009 WL 799533, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2009); see Rossetto v. Pabst Brewing Co., 217 F.3d 539, 542 (7th Cir. 2000) (upholding a denial of a motion to compel as untimely because it was filed two months after the discovery deadline without an excuse for its tardiness); Barbour v. Memory Gardens Mgmt. Corp., 2008 WL 1882847, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 23, 2008) (“... Plaintiffs need an excuse for their tardiness.”).

*2 Notre Dame has argued that the court should deny this motion as untimely. It has noted that Dr. Collins filed his motion to compel two months after the discovery deadline without good cause. Additionally, Notre Dame has indicated that it responded to Dr. Collins's discovery requests on April 20, 2015, over three months before the deadline, and that Dr. Collins knew its final position on June 8, 2015, more than six weeks before the deadline. Dr. Collins has claimed that he did not file a motion to compel before the deadline because he needed to prepare for depositions during July. Additionally, he waited to file the motion until after he could review the deposition transcripts, which arrived on August 17, 2015. Dr. Collins also has argued that the motion to compel would not prejudice Notre Dame because the court has not set a trial date and no dispositive motions remain pending.

Dr. Collins has not offered a reasonable and persuasive justification for his untimeliness. He only has indicated that he was busy with depositions and needed to review the deposition transcripts before filing the motion to compel. However, Dr. Collins had Notre Dame's response three months before the discovery deadline and knew its final position six weeks before the deadline. He had ample time to file the motion to compel before the deadline or to request an extension of time. Dr. Collins simply prioritized conducting depositions over filing a motion to compel. Without a better excuse, this court cannot excuse Dr. Collins's two month delay. Therefore, the motion is DENIED as untimely. Because the court has denied this motion as untimely, it will not decide this motion on its merits.

ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2015.