The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ENDURE INDUSTRIES INC. §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-3190-X
§
VIZIENT INC., et al., §
§
Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Endure Industries, Inc. (“Endure”) filed a motion to compel Vizient1 to produce
documents and allow two depositions. (Doc. 220). Endure filed this motion nearly
two months after the fact discovery deadline. “Courts generally look[] to the deadline
for completion of discovery in considering whether a motion to compel has been timely
filed.”2 “Courts have considered a number of factors in determining whether a motion
to compel filed after the discovery deadline is untimely and/or should be permitted,
including (1) the length of time since the expiration of the deadline, (2) the length of
time that the moving party has known about the discovery, (3) whether the discovery
deadline has been extended, (4) the explanation for the tardiness or delay, (5) whether
dispositive motions have been scheduled or filed, [6] the age of the case, [7] any
1 “Vizient” consists of Vizient, Inc.; Vizient Supply, LLC; Vizient Source, LLC; and Provista,
Inc.
2 Days Inn Worldwide Inc. v. Sonia Inves., 237 F.R.D. 395, 397 (N.D. Tex. July 17, 2006)
(Ramirez, M.J.).
prejudice to the party from whom late discovery was sought, and [8] disruption of the
court’s schedule.”3
If Endure wanted to have timely received the discovery it seeks, its “motion
had to [have been] filed sufficiently in advance of the discovery deadline (not the
motions deadline) in order to allow it to be heard by a court.”4 It didn’t do so. Here,
fact discovery was due on December 22, 2023, and the parties agreed to an extension
for expert reports to January 5, 2024. Endure filed this motion on February 15, 2024.
It was untimely, and the Days Inn factors also weigh in favor of disallowing the
motion.
First, Endure’s motion was filed nearly two months after the discovery
deadline—considerably later than even the two-week-late motion in Days Inn.5 This
deadline had already been extended multiple times. Further, Endure is moving for
the Court to overrule document production objections—objections that Endure had
since December 15, 2023, one week before the discovery deadline. As to the reason
for the tardiness or delay, Endure also hasn’t discussed this. The Court notes that
on January 31, 2024,6 it had to vacate all other deadlines—including the deadline for
summary-judgment motions—while it resolves Vizient’s motion to strike expert
reports.7 Importantly, the Court’s order to vacate the remaining deadlines was after
3 Id. at 398.
4 Id.
5 See id. at 399.
6 Doc. 212.
7 Doc. 213.
both the fact and expert discovery deadlines. So it’s not as though Endure could have
assumed the discovery deadline was also vacated. Not to mention this case has been
going on for years. Potential prejudice to Vizient for allowing the late discovery would
be further delaying the case—though there are other discovery motions still pending.
And finally, it will disrupt the Court’s schedule to allow this motion to proceed, wait
for all of the briefing, and then to rule on it.
The Court understands that this is a “complex and fact-intensive” case as
Endure calls But Endure’s motion is untimely and without justification.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion.
IT ISSO ORDERED this 26th day of February, 2024.
STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8 Doc. 220 at 4.