Schedule을 못 맞췄을경우 어떻게 되나?

디스커버리를 진행하다보면 예상치 않은 문제가 발생하여 정해진 기일에 디스커버리를 못하는 경우가 생기기도 한다. 그 예상치 않은 문제라는 것은, 클라이언트의 사정이 될 수도 있고 로펌의 사정이 될수도 있고 컨설팅회사의 사정에 의해 발생할 수 있다. 어쨌거나, 이럴때에는

Rule 37. Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

(a) Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery.

(1) In General. On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.

(2) Appropriate Court. A motion for an order to a party must be made in the court where the action is pending. A motion for an order to a nonparty must be made in the court where the discovery is or will be taken.

(3) Specific Motions.

(A) To Compel Disclosure. If a party fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a), any other party may move to compel disclosure and for appropriate sanctions.

(B) To Compel a Discovery Response. A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be made if:

(i) a deponent fails to answer a question asked under Rule 30 or 31;

(ii) a corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4);

(iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33; or

(iv) a party fails to produce documents or fails to respond that inspection will be permitted—or fails to permit inspection—as requested under Rule 34.

(C) Related to a Deposition. When taking an oral deposition, the party asking a question may complete or adjourn the examination before moving for an order.

(4) Evasive or Incomplete Disclosure, Answer, or Response. For purposes of this subdivision (a), an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.

[참고]

Federal Rule 33(b)(2) states that a "shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or ordered by the court." An attorney may seek an extension of time from the court, if the opposing lawyer will not agree. More time may be needed to respond to some but usually not all of the interrogatories. In these situations, a party must timely respond to those interrogatories that can be answered within the 30 days. Extensions of time should be sought only for those interrogatories that cannot be answered within the time allowed. The advisory committee notes advise this approach: "The fact that additional time may be needed to respond to some questions should not justify a delay in responding to those questions that can be answered within the prescribed time."

[참고]

Scheduling 중이며 서신으로 comply or objection 보내면 되고

schedule이 set 되었는데, 데드라인까지 시간을 못 맞추면 

court가 stipulation order를 보내거나 monetary and other sanctions을 내림.(a waiver of any objections, including objection based on privilege or work product protection)