*1 Before the Court is Plaintiff Estes Express Lines's (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Full and Complete Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Directed to Defendant U.S.A. Lamp and Ballast Recycling, Inc. (“motion”). (ECF No. 53). Specifically, Plaintiff takes issue with three of Defendant U.S.A. Lamp and Ballast Recycling, Inc., d/b/a Cleanlites Recycling, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents—Response Nos. 5, 7 and 10. (ECF No. 53, ¶5). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

This case was filed on May 7, 2021. The Court issued its first Case Management Order on July 21, 2021. Pursuant to that order, discovery was slated to close on May 31, 2022. (ECF No. 11, p. 1). The Case Management Order specifically provided that “[a]ll discovery requests shall be served or noticed so that the responding party has the full amount of time permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to respond by [the discovery cutoff date].” (Id.). On February 22, 2022, the Court issued a First Amended Agreed Case Management Order upon mutual agreement of the parties, which set the close of fact discovery as August 22, 2022. (ECF No. 25). On July 28, 2022, upon request and agreement of the parties, the Court issued its Second Amended Agreed Case Management Order. (ECF No. 27). This order set October 21, 2022, as the discovery deadline. (Id.). On September 16, 2022, the Court issued the Third Amended Agreed Case Management Order, again, pursuant to the joint request of the parties. (ECF No. 31). That order set January 20, 2023, as the end of fact discovery. (Id.). On January 20, 2023, the Court received a letter indicating that the parties were attempting to arrange a single deposition outside the time for fact discovery to accommodate the schedule of a witness. (ECF No. 45). The Court conducted a telephonic status call with counsel on February 16, 2023, to discuss the adjustment of remaining deadlines as a result of the need to take one, single supplemental deposition. (ECF No. 50). The Court requested that the parties meet and confer on scheduling and submit an agreed upon case management plan for the conclusion of expert discovery and summary judgment. (Id.). Upon recommendation of the parties, the Court issued its Fourth Amended Agreed Case Management Order on March 10, 2023. (ECF No. 56). It only addresses the deadlines for expert discovery and summary judgment. (Id.). Fact discovery had closed. Further, the order plainly states “NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED.” (Id.).

On March 2, 2023, the parties contacted the Court to schedule a discovery meet and confer pursuant to Section III(A) of the Court's Practices and Procedures, which was held by teleconference on March 3, 2023. The issue raised at that teleconference was Defendant's compliance with a supplemental discovery request which sought production of a claims file that, mistakenly, listed “the accident involving David A. Phillips that occurred on Interstate 90, North East Township, Erie County, Pennsylvania, on February 11, 2019.” (ECF No. 57-4). This was a clear mistake in the supplemental request in that this case has nothing to do with the identified accident. During the status call, Plaintiff accused Defendant of knowingly relying upon Plaintiff's typographical error (or inadequately altered cut-and-paste) to avoid producing the actual claims file relating to this matter. Defendant objected that even if Plaintiff had not mistakenly identified the wrong incident, the correct claims file contained privileged materials, although no privilege log had ever been created. The Court explained that a privilege log is required for every claim of privilege and gave Plaintiff leave to file a motion to compel. It is critical to note that at no time during the March 3, 2023, status conference was the focus of the parties’ dispute on Defendant's Responses to Requests for Production Nos. 5, 7, and 10. Nor, consequently, was it made clear that those responses were served in September of 2021. In short, the discovery dispute that was ultimately presented as the subject of Plaintiff's motion is substantially different than that brought to the Court's attention at the March 3, 2023, status conference.

*2 Plaintiff's motion unequivocally states that it concerns alleged deficiencies in Defendant's September 7, 2021, responses to its July 12, 2021, Requests for Production:

(ECF No. 53, p. 2) (emphasis added).[1] The Requests and Responses in question are as follows:

*3 (ECF No. 53-2, pp. 2-4).

After Defendant's Response to Motion to Compel Full and Complete Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“response”) strenuously argued that Plaintiff was untimely because it focused on discovery responses served in September 2021 and was at odds with the dispute presented to the Court in the meet and confer (ECF No. 57), Plaintiff filed a reply, labeled a Surreply in Support of Motion to Compel Full and Complete Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Directed to Defendant U.S.A. Lamp and Ballast Recycling, Inc. (reply) (ECF No. 59). The reply points to a January 6, 2023, Supplemental Request for Production of Documents that Plaintiff served on Defendant “[f]ollowing a review of the discovery produced to date.” (Id. at 1). Plaintiff represents that the request sought “full and complete claim file(s) for any and all policies of insurance maintained in relation to the subject incident, including but not limited to any correspondence or discussions relating to determinations of coverage, correspondence to and from the insured, and in any way related to the investigation of the events underlying this claim and cause of action.” (Id. at 1-2). Because this supplemental request was “essentially identical in substance to the requests made in the July 12, 2021, Requests for Production,” Plaintiff argues that its current request for relief is not precluded by inordinate delay. (Id.).

Having had the opportunity to review in writing and with focused advocacy Plaintiff's motion, the Court concludes that it is untimely. Moreover, there is no compelling justification for the delay that would warrant the Court's examination of the merits of the dispute. It is well established that discovery motions must be filed within the time frame set by the Court for discovery and that, as a general matter, motions filed outside this time frame are untimely:

*4 Pauley v. Samuels, Case No. 1:15-cv-00158, 2019 WL 2106986, at *1 (W.D. Pa. May 14, 2019).

Fact discovery closed on January 20, 2023 (with the exception of a single supplemental deposition, which the Court granted leave to conduct outside the fact discovery period). Nevertheless, the Court was not contacted to schedule a discovery status call until March 2, 2023. Plaintiff filed its motion on March 8, 2023. The fact is that Plaintiff waited over one month past the close of fact discovery to approach the Court to seek relief for the alleged discovery deficiencies.

The untimeliness of Plaintiff's motion is amplified and highlighted by the fact that it raises objections to responses that the Defendant served approximately sixteen months earlier—in September 2021. Neither Plaintiff's motion nor its accompanying brief offer any reason for the substantial delay in seeking relief from the alleged deficiencies—much less for waiting until after the close of the already extended fact discovery. Plaintiff's reply attempts to avoid the timeliness issue by diverting the Court from the allegedly deficient September 2021, Responses to its Requests for Production to the Supplemental Request it served on January 6, 2023. (ECF No. 59). The reply suggests that Plaintiff's counsel had been meeting and conferring with opposing counsel about the allegedly deficient responses and that the request for a status conference and the motion were the natural, timely, result of that process.

Plaintiff's attempt fails on multiple grounds. First, notwithstanding the change of focus in the reply, Plaintiff's actual motion focuses only upon the original discovery responses served in September 2021, not the later Supplemental Request. Second, even if the responses to the Supplemental Request were the basis of its motion, Plaintiff cannot justify its extended inaction on allegedly deficient discovery responses by later serving additional requests that are “essentially identical in substance” to the earlier requests. (ECF No. 59, p. 2). Finally—and most critically—Defendant's January 6, 2023, Supplemental Requests were also untimely. As repeatedly stated above, fact discovery closed on January 20, 2023. The Court's Case Management Order plainly states that “[a]ll discovery requests shall be served or noticed so that the responding party has the full amount of time permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to respond by [the discovery cutoff date].” (ECF No. 11). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(A), “The party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served [...].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). The Supplemental Request was served fewer than thirty days before the close of discovery. It is, therefore, untimely. As such, it cannot serve as a basis for the Court to consider a motion to compel filed weeks after the discovery deadline complaining of alleged deficiencies that were obvious (pursuant to the statements in Plaintiff's own motion) sixteen months earlier.

*5 AND NOW, this 5th day of April, 2023, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Full and Complete Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Directed to Defendant U.S.A. Lamp and Ballast Recycling, Inc. (ECF No. 53) is DENIED.