In Attala Steel Indus., LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., No.: 4:24-cv-53-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss. Jan. 8, 2026), Mississippi Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden, stated the “instant motion is due to be denied for a host of reasons” (including that “Defendant suggests the production to the undersigned of all fifty thousand plus pages, in camera, for review and decision on the claimed privilege”) within 12 days of the motion being ripe for consideration.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case, Defendant sought to compel production of documents responsive to its first set of document requests served in December 2024 and a subpoena served on Risk Strategies in April 2025. Notably, Defendant did so only after successfully moving (very late in the case) to amend its answer to assert three new affirmative defenses alleging concealment, misrepresentation, and breach of cooperation obligations by Attala Steel. Judge Virden emphasized that Defendant had argued persuasively at the time of amendment that its delay was attributable to Attala Steel’s alleged nondisclosure, and on that basis, she allowed the amendment in September 2025. However, Judge Virden later made clear that this procedural victory did not entitle Defendant to disregard discovery deadlines or procedural rules.

When discovery closed on October 10, 2025, Defendant had already received extensive document productions and privilege logs. Although Judge Virden later granted a limited 70-day extension of discovery (at Plaintiff’s request), that extension was “narrowly tailored” and explicitly restricted to discovery “relevant to establishing or disproving the three new affirmative defenses”. Despite that opportunity, Defendant did not propound any new discovery directed to those defenses. Instead, it filed the instant motion to compel on November 26, 2025, seeking production of all documents previously withheld as privileged in response to its original discovery requests and subpoena: requests that predated and did not concern the new defenses.

In its response opposing Defendant’s motion to compel, Plaintiff argued:

1. That the Court’s October 21, 2025 order narrowly reopened discovery only for matters directly related to Travelers’ newly added affirmative defenses;
2. Defendant violated Local Uniform Civil Rule 7(b)(2)(C) by filing the motion too late in the discovery period to allow for briefing, ruling, and compliance;
3. Defendant failed to comply with Rule 37 and Local Rule 37 by not engaging in a proper good-faith meet-and-confer and by seeking blanket relief without quoting or addressing specific discovery requests and objections;
4. Defendant failed to meet its burden to establish the necessity of the documents, their relevance, and the prejudice it suffered;
5. Risk Strategies’ communications with or inclusion of Plaintiff’s counsel on communications involving it are protected by attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and common interest privilege;
6. The Court’s Case Management Order included a Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) provision to protect against waiver of privilege.

Stating: “The instant motion is due to be denied for a host of reasons, the most significant of which are addressed hereafter”, Judge Virden noted: “As of October 10, 2025, discovery in this case closed pursuant to the Case Management Order. The discovery that had been propounded and responded to by that date included, of course, the Defendant’s first set of document requests and the subpoena issued to Risk Strategies. That discovery did not pertain to the three new affirmative defenses—and any suggestion that it did would fly in the face of Defendant’s repeated representations to the contrary made in support of its motion for late leave to amend to assert those defenses…Consequently, Defendant’s suggestion that motion practice related to discovery that was not even propounded for that purposes of the three new affirmative defenses might properly be compelled under my order…of October 21, 2025, is without any merit.”

Judge Virden added this:

“Moreover, the suggestion that the instant motion was, under the circumstances, filed in sufficient time so as to allow the Court an opportunity before December 30, 2025, to consider, issue an opinion on, and have the parties effectuate the same is not even colorable. Among other obvious reasons such a suggestion is wholly unrealistic are these:

• The motion, including the exhibits, is 535 pages in length;
• The memorandum in support of the motion is 28 pages in length;
• The response by Plaintiff to the motion is a collective 21 pages in length;
• The reply is 50 pages in length;
• The response by Risk Strategies is another 21 pages in length;
• The documents identified as privileged and which the Defendant seeks to have the Court rule on regarding privilege are roughly 150 in number, totaling in excess of 50,000 pages. To facilitate resolution of the motion in a timely fashion—by December 30, 2025, Defendant suggests the production to the undersigned of all fifty thousand plus pages, in camera, for review and decision on the claimed privilege; and
• The motion was not ripe until December 18, 2025.”

In denying the motion, Judge Virden stated: “In sum, I find that Defendant’s out of time hail Mary effort to have the Court compel the wholesale the production of over 50,000 pages of documents that were claimed as privileged long ago is futile.”

So, what do you think? What do you think of the “host of reasons” for denial of the motion? 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.