Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline in Virginia

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline

“Discovery is the process by which facts resting within the knowledge of one party are disclosed to another party in a suit or proceeding in court.” (See Temple v. Mary Wash. Hosp., Inc. (2014) 762 S.E.2d 751, 754.)

“Rule 4:1(b)(1) states that with certain exceptions [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party." (See Nizan v. Wells Fargo Bank (2007) 274 Va. 481, 500.)

“It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See Hall v. Hall, Record No. 2021-04-4, at *1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2005).)

“One purpose of the discovery process is to disclose all relevant and material evidence before trial in order that the trial may be an effective method for arriving at the truth and not a battle of wits between counsel.” (See Little v. Cooke (2007) 274 Va. 697, 717; Moore v. Moore, Record No. 0314-20-4, at *21 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2020).)

“Pretrial discovery rules require litigants to respond to discovery requests in a timely and forthcoming manner.” (See Mikhaylov v. Sales (2016) 784 S.E.2d 286, 290.)

As such, “to ensure that all parties are prepared at trial, trial courts have the authority to impose an explicit discovery deadline or cutoff consistent with the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia.” (See Code sub. sec. 8.01-4 [authorizing the trial court to prescribe rules promoting order and efficiency]; Moore v. Moore, Record No. 0314-20-4, at *21 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2020).)

However, for good cause shown, courts have the power to extend discovery deadlines. (See Ellis v. Sussex Dep't of Soc. Servs., No. 0397-21-2, at *3 (Va. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2022).)

Filing Deadlines under Rule 5:5 of the Virginia Court Rules

“The times prescribed for filing a notice of appeal (Rules 5:9(a), 5:14(a), 5:21(a)(3), and 5:21(b)(2)), a petition for review pursuant to Code sub. sec. 8.01-626 (Rule 5:17A) and a petition for rehearing (Rules 5:20 and 5:37), are mandatory. A single extension not to exceed 30 days may be granted if at least two Justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia concur in a finding that an extension for papers to be filed is warranted on motion for good cause shown.” (See Va. R. Sup. Ct. 5:5(a).)

“The times prescribed for filing a petition for appeal (Rules 5:17(a) and 5:21(a)(6)) are mandatory; provided, however, that an extension may be granted, in the discretion of the Supreme Court, on motion for good cause shown.” (See Va. R. Sup. Ct. 5:5(a1).)

“The time period for filing a notice of appeal or a petition for appeal where permitted by law is not extended by the filing of a motion for a new trial, a petition for rehearing, or a like pleading unless the final judgment is modified, vacated, or suspended by the trial court or other tribunal, pursuant to Rule 1:1, or a timely petition for rehearing is filed in the Court of Appeals. In any such case, the time for filing a notice of appeal and a petition for appeal is computed from the date of final judgment entered following such modification, vacation, or suspension, or from the date the Court of Appeals refuses a timely petition for rehearing or enters final judgment following the granting of such a petition.” (See Va. R. Sup. Ct. 5:5(b).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline

“It is within the broad discretion of the trial court to determine whether to grant an extension of time and permit a late filing.” (See Rule 1:9; Deluca v. Deluca, Record No. 1560-18-3, at *15 (Va. Ct. App. May 21, 2019).)

"Whether such discretion has been properly exercised will, of course, depend upon the circumstances of the particular case." (See id; Westfall v. Westfall (1954) 196 Va. 97, 103.)

"Only when reasonable jurists could not differ can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred." (See Deluca v. Deluca, Record No. 1560-18-3, at *15 (Va. Ct. App. May 21, 2019); Turner v. Commonwealth (2015) 65 Va. App. 312, 327 (2015); Grattan v. Commonwealth (2009) 278 Va. 602, 620.)

"In determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion by granting or denying leave to file a late pleading, the existence or absence of good cause for the delay, together with other compelling circumstances, control the determination." (See Deluca v. Deluca, Record No. 1560-18-3, at *15 (Va. Ct. App. May 21, 2019); Emrich v. Emrich (1989) 9 Va. App. 288, 292.)

“The trial court should consider, among other things, the prejudice to opposing party, the good faith of the moving party, existence of a meritorious claim or defense, and the extenuating circumstances.” (See Deluca v. Deluca, Record No. 1560-18-3, at *15 (Va. Ct. App. May 21, 2019).)

“A trial court's decisions on such matters will generally not be reversed on appeal unless the action taken was improvident and affected substantial rights.” (See Temple v. Mary Wash. Hosp., Inc. (2014) 762 S.E.2d 751, 753.)

“A trial court commits an abuse of discretion when:

1. it fails to consider a relevant factor that should have been given significant weight;
2. it considers and gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor; or
3. it considers all proper factors, and no improper ones, but, in weighing those factors, the court commits a clear error in judgment.”

(See Barnes v. Commonwealth (2020) 72 Va.App. 160, 167; Race v. Commonwealth, No. 0691-22-4, at *4 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2022).)

“The abuse of discretion standard recognizes that a court has a range of choice and that its decision will not be disturbed as long as it stays within that range and is not influenced by any mistake of law." (See Galiotos v. Galiotos (2021) 300 Va. 1, 10, 858 S.E.2d 653; Payne v. Payne (2023) 77 Va. App. 570, 590.)

"Although we review a ruling on discovery for abuse of discretion, a lower court's interpretation of a statute or the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia presents a question subject to de novo review on appeal." (See Patel v. Rabinowitz ex rel. Lakhani Assocs. (2022) 75 Va. App. 663, 669-70; Nimety v. Commonwealth (2016) 66 Va. App. 432, 437, 786 S.E.2d 835.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline

It is well settled that “the plain language of Rule 4:1(b)(1) indicates, a party's request for discovery will not be denied so long as it is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. The rule thus establishes a broad scope for discovery requests, defining the relevancy of such requests by relation to the subject matter of the action, regardless of whether [they] relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party." (See Hall v. Hall, Record No. 2021-04-4, at *1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2005); Lyle, Siegel, Croshaw Beale, P.C. v. Tidewater Capital Corp. (1995) 249 Va. 426, 438-39, 457 S.E.2d 28, 36.)

It is also well settled that absent a motion to extend discovery or a protective order, “pursuant to Rule 4:12(b)(2), a trial court may sanction a party for failing to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” (See Landrum v. Johnston-Willis Hospitals (2011) 282 Va. 346, 352.)