NA'EEM BETZ, Plaintiff, v. MY COMPUTER CAREER, Defendant No. 21-CV-1080-ABJ-ZMF United States District Court, District of Columbia Signed April 06, 2022 Counsel Na'Eem Betz, Washington, DC, Pro Se. Adam Bowser, Arentfox Schiff LLP, Zachary D. Smith, Laura E. Zell, Arent Fox LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant. Faruqui, Zia M., United States Magistrate Judge Memorandum Opinion *1 On August 16, 2021, Judge Amy Berman Jackson referred this case to a magistrate judge to resolve any discovery disputes. See Minute Order (Aug. 16, 2021). Before the Court today, is Plaintiff Mr. Betz's Emergency Motion to Reopen Discovery. See ECF No. 23 (Pl.’s Mot.). Upon careful consideration of the motions and responses thereto; the applicable law; and the entire record; Mr. Betz's Motion to Reopen Discovery is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND Mr. Betz and MCC are engaged in a dispute over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's “Do-Not-Call” provisions in 47 U.S.C. § 227(c). See ECF No. 1 (Compl.) ¶¶ 2–4. This law prohibits telephone solicitation to a residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national “Do-Not-Call” registry. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). The parties agree that MCC repeatedly call[ed Mr. Betz's] wireless telephone number ending in 8063, which is registered on the [ ] National Do Not Call Registry.” Compl. ¶¶ 4, 19; ECF No. 7 (Answer) at 12. On July 9, 2021, the parties filed a joint meet and confer report with an agreed upon discovery schedule and a request for two depositions per party. See ECF No. 10. Judge Jackson accepted the parties’ request and ordered discovery to be completed by December 7, 2021. See ECF No. 11. On July 23, 2021, MCC provided initial disclosures to Mr. Betz, listing Mr. Chad Stell, the Director of Enrollment Quality & Training, as a relevant witness. See ECF No. 30. Mr. Betz moved to compel MCC to supplement their initial disclosures to include additional MCC employees who had placed the unwanted telephone calls. See Minute Order (Nov. 18, 2021). The court denied Mr. Betz's request. See id. On November 23, 2021, MCC timely responded to Mr. Betz's discovery requests. See Pl.’s Mot. at 3. The Court granted multiple requests by Mr. Betz to delay the deadline for him to respond to MCC's discovery request. On February 23, 2022, Mr. Betz produced incomplete responses. On March 25, 2022, the Court granted MCC's Motion for Sanctions, waived Mr. Betz's objections and ordered him to respond to MCC's outstanding discovery requests. See ECF No. 33. Prior to the December 7, 2021 close of discovery, Mr. Betz did not schedule any depositions. See Pl.’s Mot. at 3. On February 5, 2022, Mr. Betz filed this Motion to Reopen Discovery seeking to depose Mr. Stell and three additional MCC employees. II. LEGAL STANDARD Courts may only modify scheduling orders for “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Consequently, reopening discovery would require a showing of good cause[.]” U.S. ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Ctrs. of Am., 576 F. Supp. 2d 128, 133 (D.D.C. 2008). “What constitutes good cause sufficient to justify the modification of a scheduling order necessarily varies with the circumstances of each case.” Mattiaccio v. DHA Group, Inc., No. 12-cv-1249, 2019 WL 6498865, at *9 (D.D.C. Dec. 3, 2019). To reopen discovery, “the party seeking relief [must] show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite its diligence.” Id. (cleaned up). III. ANALYSIS *2 “Courts have identified several relevant factors in reviewing motions to reopen discovery: (1) whether trial is imminent; (2) whether the request is opposed; (3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced; (4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court; (5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allotted by the district court; and (6) the likelihood that discovery will lead to relevant evidence.” Childers v. Slater, 197 F.R.D. 185, 188 (D.D.C. 2000). “Although ‘pro se litigants generally are entitled to wider latitude than those who are represented by counsel’ ... these factors weigh[ ] against reopening discovery here.” Mattiaccio, 2019 WL 6498865, at *9 (quoting Childers, 197 F.R.D. at 188). While trial is not imminent in this case, the “remaining five” factors weigh against reopening discovery. See In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 138 F. Supp. 3d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2015) (denying motion to reopen discovery when trial was not imminent). The second and third factors weigh heavily against reopening discovery. MCC “oppose[s] [Mr. Betz's] motion and would certainly be prejudiced by any further delay in proceedings.” Mattiaccio, 2019 WL 6498865, at *9. “There is no doubt that re-opening discovery will cause [MCC] to incur costs and expenses associated with ... preparation for and attendance at requested depositions” Moroughan v. Cty. of Suffolk, 320 F. Supp. 3d 511, 516 (E.D.N.Y. 2018). As to the fourth and fifth factors, Mr. Betz “was not diligent in attempting to obtain this discovery,” which was foreseeable to him. Mattiaccio, 2019 WL 6498865, at *9. Mr. Betz was first informed of Mr. Stell as a witness in MCC's initial disclosures on July 23, 2021. See ECF No. 30. Mr. Betz became aware of the two additional witnesses he seeks to depose on November 23, 2022, two weeks prior to the close of discovery. See Pl.’s Mot. at 2. Yet he did not schedule depositions of them or timely seek to extend the discovery period. See supra. With no justification offered by Mr. Betz for his failure to act, his request is hardly viable. See Blake Marine Grp., LLC v. Frenkel & Co., 425 F. Supp. 3d 330, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (“[i]f the party moving to amend seeks to add claims based on facts it knew or should have known at the time of the amendment deadline, it likely failed to act with sufficient diligence to satisfy Rule 16(b)”); see also Mollinger-Wilson v. Quizno's Franchise Co., 122 F. App'x 917, 920 (10th Cir. 2004) (motion to compel was untimely because discovery deadline had passed and plaintiffs had not employed previous opportunities to take depositions). Nor has Mr. Betz worked within the Court ordered guidelines of a limit to two depositions. See ECF No. 10. Moreover, Mr. Betz has not been diligent in completing his other discovery obligations. On March 25, 2022, the court sanctioned him for his failure to adequately respond to MCC's discovery requests. See ECF No. 33. Mr. Betz's lack of diligence further weighs against reopening discovery. See Mattiaccio, 2019 WL 6498865, at *9 (plaintiff's previous untimely discovery motions factors against reopening discovery). Finally, the sixth factor also weighs against reopening discovery. “[I]t is highly unlikely that the testimony that [Mr. Betz] seeks will be relevant to his [TCPA] claims.” Id. The three witnesses Mr. Betz seeks to depose appear to have made the unsolicited phone calls to Mr. Betz. See Pl.’s Mot. at 3. However, MCC does not dispute making those phone calls. See ECF No. 30 (Def.’s Opp.) at 12. And Mr. Betz has not proffered why, in light of this concession, these witnesses may have relevant information. Indeed, Mr. Betz has not identified any specific information he seeks from Mr. Stell, arguing only that the depositions will provide “additional evidence, without which, the trial court would lack necessary evidence and incur significant delays.” See Pl.’s Mot. at 2. This conclusory argument is insufficient to justify reopening discovery. See Biosafe-One, Inc. v. Hawks, 379 F. App'x 4, 9 (2d Cir. 2010) (“the district court's decision not to reopen discovery was not an abuse of discretion, because [ ] Plaintiffs’ allegations of non-compliance were vague and conclusory.”). IV. CONCLUSION *3 For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr. Betz's Motion to Reopen Discovery is DENIED.[1] Footnotes [1] This is an Order issued pursuant to Local Rule 72.2. See Haughton v. D.C., 161 F. Supp. 3d 100, 102 (D.D.C. 2014). Pursuant to LCvR 72.2, any party may file written objections to this ruling within 14 days after being served. The objections shall specifically designate the order or part thereof to which objection is made, and the basis for the objection. The filing of oppositions and replies shall be governed by LCvR 7(b) and (d). When considering an objection, the District Judge will determine whether this Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See LCvR 72.2(c); see also Haughton, 161 F. Supp. 3d at 10