*1 This matter is before the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to a Referral Order [ECF No. 6] entered by the Hon. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief United States District Judge, on May 31, 2023. By the Referral Order, Judge Kleeh directed the undersigned to enter orders or report and recommendations, as appropriate, and to handle other matters herein.

Presently pending before the Court are five (5) motions filed by pro se Defendant, Sharon Zuckerman (“Zuckerman”). The motions which are the subject of this Order are as follows:

The Court addresses the above-noted motions in turn.

Zuckerman takes issue with the contents and completeness of Plaintiffs' initial disclosures made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). By her first of these motions [ECF No. 67], Zuckerman takes issue with Plaintiffs providing information ostensibly of the nature of pre-trial disclosures contemplated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), instead of initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). Indeed, in Plaintiffs' Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures filed on August 14, 2023 [ECF No. 57], the disclosures are labeled as provided under Rule 26(a)(3) instead of Rule 26(a)(1). However, Plaintiffs shortly thereafter, on August 23, 2023, filed amended disclosures [ECF No. 68] labeled as (and in the nature of) disclosures filed under Rule 26(a)(1).

As to Plaintiffs' amended disclosures [ECF No. 68], Zuckerman still takes issue with them as not providing a computation of damages as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). However, courts have recognized that such computations of damages sometimes are developed or refined in the course of discovery and litigation. And courts have further recognized that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, a party with a duty to disclose them ultimately may be precluded from pursuing such damages if disclosure is made unfairly late in litigation. See generally Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. v. Bentley Motors Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-320, 2020 WL 6817060, at *3-4 (E.D. Va. Nov. 3, 2020).

Because this issue is relatively early in litigation, Zuckerman's motions [ECF Nos. 67, 70] are hereby DENIED at this time. However, Plaintiffs are cautioned that undue delay in providing a computation of damages risks a different treatment of the issue by the Court in later stages of litigation.

By this motion [ECF No. 71], Zuckerman requests an extension of time to respond to certain discovery requests (interrogatories and requests for admission) propounded by Plaintiffs. Specifically, she requests an extension to December 15, 2023. She asserts that Plaintiffs have not agreed to grant an extension of time to her.

*2 In support of her motion, Zuckerman asserts that the Court's First Order and Notice [ECF No. 15] was entered too early and as such, discovery requests were improperly propounded on her. The basis of Zuckerman's argument here is unclear. However, Zuckerman would do well to note that, in virtually all civil matters, this Court and others enter a First Order and Notice to initiate a Scheduling Conference (and spur necessary measures to assure a productive Scheduling Conference), ultimately resulting in the issuance of the Scheduling Order. Nothing about the process and timing in this regard is in contravention of the Court's Local Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Indeed, it is undertaken to aid in the timely and efficient resolution of issues arising in such civil matters.

In any case, Zuckerman represents that her responses to these discovery requests are due on or about September 16, 2023. The Court sees no prejudice to any party, at this relatively early stage in litigation, in granting a reasonable extension of Zuckerman's deadline to respond to the subject discovery requests, to October 20, 2023. However, an extension of the length which Zuckerman requests, to December 15, 2023, constitutes a needless delay. Thus, the motion is GRANTED in part to allow an extension to October 20, 2023, for Zuckerman to respond to the discovery requests, and DENIED in part to the extent which a further extension is requested.

By this motion [ECF No. 76], Zuckerman requests a 60-day extension to file an answer and counterclaim. In support of her motion [ECF No. 76], Zuckerman states that the Court denied her motion [ECF No. 4] to dismiss. Zuckerman cites to the undersigned's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 74], entered on September 5, 2023, which recommends to the presiding District Judge that Zuckerman's motion to dismiss be denied.

The Report and Recommendation does not itself operate to deny Zuckerman's motion to dismiss; rather, it is a recommendation to the presiding District Judge, and the District Judge ultimately will make a dispositive ruling on that motion. Thus, Zuckerman's deadline to file an answer/counterclaim has not begun to run until the dismissal motion is ruled upon. The deadline for doing so is 14 days after the motion to dismiss is dismissed (if the District Judge in fact dismisses the motion). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A).

Accordingly, the motion for extension [ECF No. 76] is hereby DENIED as unripe.

Finally, Zuckerman has filed a motion [ECF No. 77] for the undersigned to reconsider the earlier Order [ECF No. 75] denying her motion [ECF No. 61] to strike Plaintiffs' response brief to her earlier filed motion [ECF No. 39] to compel. Simply put, Zuckerman's motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 77] provides no compelling justification to strike Plaintiff's response brief of which Zuckerman complains. Zuckerman would do well to note that the Court has inherent power in managing its docket. See generally United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 236 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, courts have a longstanding and well-founded preference to decide issues on their merits, and Plaintiffs' brief is helpful in this regard. See generally Colleton Preparatory Acad., Inc. v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 616 F.3d 413, 418 (4th Cir. 2010). Thus, the motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 77] is DENIED.

For the reasons stated herein, and as more fully set forth above, the motions regarding Plaintiffs' initial disclosures [ECF Nos. 67, 70] are hereby DENIED; the motion for extension to answer Plaintiffs' discovery requests [ECF No. 71] is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; the motion for an extension [ECF No. 76] is hereby DENIED as unripe; and the motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 77] is hereby DENIED.

*3 It is all so ORDERED.