Missed Milestone:  “This rings the death knell for Plaintiffs’ motion….”

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to respond to requests for production. Defendants asserted that the motion was untimely.

The court wrote that: “Defendants’ untimeliness argument is appropriate.” Harris v. Landmark Recovery of Carmel LLC, 2025 WL 3505446 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 12, 2025).

The March 18, 2024, Scheduling Order set milestone dates and non-dispositive motions were to be filed 30 days before the discovery deadline. The Order stated that: “No motion to extend discovery or to continue other pretrial deadlines will be approved after this motion deadline absent extraordinary reasons.”  It specifically addressed the filing requirement for motions to compel.

The court had granted several extensions, “making any motion to compel due by August 4, 2025, at the latest.”  It wrote that: “As stated earlier, Plaintiffs did not file the instant motion to compel until October 7, 2025.”

The Harris court wrote:

Notably, Plaintiffs do not even acknowledge Defendants’ untimeliness argument in their briefs, much less attempt to set forth “extraordinary reasons” for filing the motion to compel after the deadline in the Scheduling Order. In fact, they do not mention the relevant deadline at all. This rings the death knell for Plaintiffs’ motion, as “[c]ourts have a legitimate interest in ensuring that parties abide by scheduling orders to ensure prompt and orderly litigation.” …. “The court must set prescribed times, dates, and deadlines, and the attorneys must respect and comply with these deadlines, which need to be enforced if the court is going to properly manage its calendar.” ….

Because Plaintiffs’ motion to compel was filed after the relevant deadline in the Court’s scheduling order, and Plaintiffs fail to offer “extraordinary reasons” for the untimely filing as required by the Scheduling Order, the motion to compel … is summarily DENIED.

Harris is not an outlier. A Scheduling Order is – – an Order; Sanctions Imposed Despite Consent Request to Modify (Nov. 30, 2025).  This is an application of the Cinderella principle: “Like Cinderella, the attorney in this case tripped on the electronic stairs at midnight, but his client lost more than a glass slipper.”  Tom Donlon, Silly Lawyer Tricks XXX (americanbar.org)(Mar. 14, 2023).

For more on Scheduling Orders, see:

• Defendants’ Violation of Scheduling Order Did Not Support Exclusionary Sanctions – E-Discovery LLC(Aug. 23, 2025);
• Sanctions for Failure to Comply With a Scheduling Order That Set Discovery Milestones – E-Discovery LLC(May 27, 2025);
• Scheduling Orders Are Mandatory; Vital to Caseload Management; and, Enforced Even Where Parties Got Themselves Into a “Pickle” by Dilatory Efforts to Cooperate – E-Discovery LLC(Oct. 10, 2024).

See generally:

• Better Late Than Never? Case Dismissed for Filing 16 Minutes After Midnight – E-Discovery LLC(Mar. 17, 2023);
• Another Cinderella Situation –Motion Denied as Untimely? – E-Discovery LLC(May 31, 2024);
• Plaintiffs Raised This Issue With the Court Too Late. – E-Discovery LLC(Oct. 7, 2024);
• Dilatory Objections to Corporate Designee Topics Were Too Late; “Blanket” De-Designation Request Was Denied – E-Discovery LLC(Oct. 22, 2024);
• Too Busy to Respond to Discovery = Waiver of Objections & Sanctions – E-Discovery LLC(Nov. 1, 2024).