The Sequencing of Discovery is Not “Tit-for-Tat”

An assertion that an opponent failed to fully answer discovery propounded on it will not justify refusing to timely respond to the opponent’s discovery.  In a recent decision, the court explained that the plaintiff unsuccessfully sought to prevent his own deposition, writing:

Plaintiff asserts that his deposition was noticed prior to him receiving fully satisfactory responses to written discovery. Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with discovery responses is not grounds for avoiding his deposition. See e.g., Nat’l Acad. of Recording Arts & Scis., Inc. v. On Point Events, LP, 256 F.R.D. 678, 680 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (“discovery is not conducted on a ‘tit-for-tat’ basis”); Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Ins. Co. v. Maffei, 2006 WL 2709835, * 5 n. 21 (D. Alaska Sept. 20, 2006) (“The rules do not authorize one party to withhold discoverable material in retaliation for the opposing party’s withholding of discoverable material.”); Fresenius Med. Care Holding Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 644, 653 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (“A party may not excuse its failure to comply with discovery obligations by claiming that its opposing party is similarly delinquent. Nor may a party condition its compliance with its discovery obligations on receiving discovery from its opponent.”).

Ghafoori v. Officer Duncan, 2025 WL 3760680 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2025)(emphasis added).  Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(1) requires only reasonable notice.

Rule 26(d) addresses the timing and sequence of discovery. Rule 26(d)(3) addresses the “sequence” and it adds: “Unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise for the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of justice: (A) methods of discovery may be used in any sequence; and (B) discovery by one party does not require any other party to delay its discovery.”