[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael Berman.]

Harris v. Washington County, 2026 WL 813917 (D. Ut. Mar. 24, 2026), addresses a gap in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The rules are silent on when a motion for sanctions must be filed. However, in Harris: “Because the Motion is untimely, it is denied.” Where there is a lack of clear milestones, additional caution is prudent.

Initially, the court set out the procedural facts:

Two days before the close of fact discovery, on January 7, 2026, Defendants conducted Plaintiff’s deposition. Fifty-one days after the deposition and forty-nine days after the close of fact discovery, the Washington County Defendants filed the instant Motion. Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to fully participate in his deposition. Defendants also complain about Plaintiff’s use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”). Defendants seek dispositive sanctions or, in the alternative, to compel Plaintiff to complete his deposition and to pay certain fees and costs.

Next, the Harris court explained the applicable legal principles: “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 contains no time limitations on motions, but a motion for sanctions should be filed without unreasonable delay. Similarly, the federal rules do not impose specific timing for filing a motion to compel and courts retain discretion to determine whether a motion is too tardy to be considered.” [cleaned up]

In the District of Utah, that gap is filled by common law: “Judges within this district routinely deny as untimely discovery motions made weeks and months after the alleged infraction or the close of fact discovery.” [cleaned up].

In Harris, defendants knew of the issue on the day plaintiff was deposed; however, defendants waited two months to file their motion. “If Defendants wanted timely resolution of Plaintiff’s objections, they could have contacted the Court during the deposition. Had they done so, the Court would have instructed Plaintiff to answer counsel’s questions. Unfortunately, they did not and the Court declines to excuse their tardiness in bringing these important matters to the Court’s attention.” Defendants also passed up on another opportunity to present the issue when there was a request for additional time to conduct discovery. The court added:

This stands in stark contrast to the events immediately preceding Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendants were extremely active in seeking to delay Plaintiff’s deposition, but have been surprisingly nonchalant when it comes to completing it. While the Court does not condone Plaintiff’s actions during his deposition, the Court finds that Defendants have unreasonably delayed in their filing of this Motion and it will be denied on this ground, without consideration of the merits. [emphasis added].

The court also stated that granting a motion to compel would require re-opening of discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4) permits modification of a scheduling “only for good cause” and it found that lacking here. It held that the pro se misuse of AI did not violate a prior order on the facts presented and accepted the safeguards suggested by the plaintiff for future filings.

See generally:

• The “Best Time” to File a Spoliation Motion (Jul. 15, 2025);
• Another Spoliation Motion Denied as Untimely (Mar. 14, 2024);
• Spoliation Motions Denied as Untimely – Another Wake-Up Call (Sep. 8, 2023);
• When Should a Spoliation Motion Be Filed and Decided? (Dec. 26, 2020).

On related issues, see When is a Motion for Protective Order Untimely?  Meet and Confer Was Futile (Oct. 3, 2025)(Rule 26 does not establish a time limit for making a motion for protective order, but the motion must be reasonable) and When Must a Motion to Compel Be Filed? – Part 4 (Oct. 28, 2025)(rule does not state when a motion to compel must be filed); When Must a Motion to Compel Be Filed? (Aug. 26, 2024); When Must a Motion to Compel Be Filed?  – Part 2; (Sep. 6, 2024); Half-Baked Motion to Compel Was Not Prompt, Not Ripe, Not Complete, and Not Likely to Succeed (Aug. 22, 2025)(Part 3).

A non-exhaustive list of District of Maryland timing decisions follows: Smith v. Wormuth, 2024 WL 1012887 (D. Md. Mar. 8, 2024); CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Spiniello Global, Inc., 2023 WL 5515979 (D. Md. Aug. 25, 2023); Eller v. Prince George’s Co. Public Schools, et al., 2020 WL 7336730 (D. Md. Dec. 14, 2020); Shackelford v. Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, 2020 WL 5203340 (D. Md. September 1, 2020); Brittney Gobble Photography, LLC v. Sinclair Broad. Grp., Inc., 2020 WL 1809191, at *3 (D. Md. Apr. 9, 2020); Sabah v. Agbodjogbe, 2019 WL 4447235, at *4 (D. Md. Sept. 17, 2019); Goodman v. Praxair Servs., Inc., 632 F.Supp.2d 494, 508 (D. Md. 2009).

Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.