My question involves court procedures in Federal Court.
Pro se litigate in Federal Civil Court.
Made a FRCP 34 request for production of documents on Jan 8, 2008. Send certified letter on Feb. 27 to verify status. Phone conversation on March 12, other party promised to send documents. On April 2, emailed, no response. Emailed on April 9, party again promised to respond, documents to be mailed on following Monday/Tuesday overnight. Party emailed on May 7, again offering promises to respond. I filed a Motion to Compel on May 12. Received only 1 of the 24 documents requested on June 4. Opposing party filed a Motion in response to Motion to Compel as Moot, because they responded. Court ruled on Motion to Compel on June 6, against my Motion to compel 1) Party had responded, 2) Motion to Compel was filed after deadline to file motion Feb 11. Case Management order states “Any motion to compel discovery shall be filed and served within 30 days of the act or omission in discovery complained of, unless the time for filing such motion is extended for good cause shown.”
Need case law to support the Motion to Compel after discovery, i.e. to justify the late filing of the Motion. I have found a case referencing a promise of a party to respond by a date is an “Order”.
While courts have only applied Rule 37(b)(2) where parties have violated a court order, courts have broadly interpreted what constitutes an "order" for purposes of imposing sanctions. See, e.g., Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Cammon, No. 88 C 5549, 1989 WL 153558, at * 4 (N.D.Ill. November 7, 1989) (violation of an "order" found where a party failed to deliver documents it promised to turn over by a certain date)
Any assistance is appreciated. Direct contact by email is encouraged.