In M-1 Holdings, Inc. v. Members 1st Federal Credit Union, No. 22 C 1162 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 2024), Illinois Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole, after six extensions to the discovery deadline had already been granted by the Court, denied defendant’s motion to compel production of documents from two counter-defendants, stating: “It had ample opportunity to broach the topic with the court well before fact discovery closed. It did not do so. Now it’s far too late.”

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case, Judge Cole began his ruling with a quote from Fred Rogers (of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood), as follows:

“I like to take my time I mean that when I want to do a thing I like to take my time and do it right

I mean I might just make mistakes If I should have to hurry up and so I like to take my time

To tie my shoes To eat To get dressed To go to sleep at night To sing a song for you and everything I do”

Commenting on that verse, Judge Cole stated: “What an idyllic thought – having all the time in the world to complete a task. However, cases are not litigated in Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood. In this neighborhood, there are deadlines…Lawyers tend to be aware of them, but often only as a blur in their peripheral vision as they careen past them. But deadlines are essential. Without them, especially in discovery, cases would, of course, go on endlessly…But, lawyers will always want more. Review of one set of documents makes them crave another set of documents. When they get these, they wonder if there’s another group they would find interesting. When they get that set, they think, surely, there must be more; the next set will be the one. Maybe this one last piece of paper or the one after this one will do the trick. But, it can’t go on that way, ad infinitum. That’s not the “neighborhood” we live in, and life is, sadly, short and perfection unattainable.”

Discovery began in the case in January 2022, with the court adopting the parties’ agreed-upon schedule. Since then, the Court had granted six discovery extensions. When discussing the fifth extension, Judge Cole stated: “on March 1, 2024, I granted the fifth extension, and said – or tried to – in no uncertain terms, that ‘[t]his however, is the final extension of the discovery schedule.’…That sentence in the Order was even underlined, thinking that if something is underlined the significance would not be overlooked.”

Continuing, he said: “In hindsight, perhaps I should have added, ‘and this time I mean it’ as Judge Seeger lamented he had not done, but should have in Galindo v. Café 23 Inc… But I did not. And so, not surprisingly, a month later, the defendant moved for a sixth extension of the fact discovery deadline, asking for an additional forty-five days! The excuse this time was that one of the defendant’s lawyers had changed law firms and needed to be accommodated as she settled in and had the case file transferred to her new firm. I granted the motion. The new, seventh fact discovery deadline would be July 18, 2024. I again said it would be ‘the final extension of the discovery schedule.’…Broken in spirit, I didn’t even bother to underline it this time”.

Even after that, the parties continued to push for more time to complete discovery and Judge Cole granted one more extension to complete four more depositions. As Judge Cole stated: “It will be recalled that the parties claimed they were merely going to wrap up four depositions after the close of fact discovery on July 18, 2024, with no need for court intervention. Obviously, that’s not what happened. So, let’s say, to vary the quip, seven times bitten, eighth time shy.”

So, regarding defendant’s motion to compel counter-defendants, B2 Bank and Lincoln Savings, to produce complaint logs and to compel Lincoln Savings to produce revenue reports and related correspondence, Judge Cole stated: “The defendant served the document requests they say are at issue in May and November of 2023…The two counter-defendants both replied in timely fashion in June and December and indicated that they would be limiting production to documents pertaining to the accused marks and that they were unaware of any documents that were responsive within those parameters…Given the responses the counter-defendants provided way back in June and November of 2023…, the defendant seems to have been aware of the counter-defendants understandable limitations of production to documents pertaining to the trademarks for a year and a half before it filed its motion to compel, and for a year before discovery closed for the final time after six extensions on July 18, 2024.[8] It had ample opportunity to broach the topic with the court well before fact discovery closed…It did not do so. Now it’s far too late.”

Denying the motion, Judge Cole stated: “Discovery, like life itself, is never perfect… Lawyers do not get everything they want – nor should they. Even in litigation, entitlement to information has its limits.”

So, what do you think? Do you agree that defendant’s request was “far too late”? Or should it have been “far too late” way before that? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.