Asking When Untimely Discovery Responses Will Be Provided Doesn’t Consent to an Extension

Dochee v. The Methodist Hospitals, Inc., 2026 WL 2517676 (N.D. In. Aug. 26, 2026), resolved a number of discovery disputes.

Plaintiff argued that many of Defendants’ discovery responses were untimely and requested that the court deem all objections to have been waived. Responses were between six weeks to two months late.

The court wrote:

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(4), “[a]ny ground not stated in a timely objection [to an interrogatory] is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4)…. Case law imposes similar consequences for a party’s failure to timely object to document requests…. It is firmly established in this Circuit that a party who fails to timely respond to discovery requests waives his objections thereto. [cleaned up].

Defendants argued “that they responded to the best of their ability to the voluminous requests and interrogatories.”

They also asserted that “they were in communication with Plaintiff during the course of discovery and that Plaintiff was aware that Defendants were working on responses and answers to the voluminous discovery.”

Plaintiffs responded “that just because counsel requested information about when late responses would be provided, it does not mean that she consented or acquiesced to an extension of any kind.” [emphasis added].

The court agreed: “The Court views Defendants’ failure to move for an extension of time or timely provide responses and objections with disfavor.”  [emphasis added]. Not only had Defendants failed to file a motion, but they did not “even explicitly ask Plaintiff” for an extension.

However, because Defendants had now responded, the court did not strike their responses or deem the objections waived.

The court addressed many other issues. For example:  “The Court notes that Defendant Methodist objected on the basis of relevance in addition to objecting on the basis of privilege to many of the referenced requests. Defendant Methodist need not provide a privilege log for the requests where it objected on grounds besides just privilege, but does need to provide a privilege log for” the others.  Cf. Listing a Document on a Privilege Log Concedes That it is Relevant for Discovery (Sept. 6, 2025).