Davis Polk Asks to Block Late Discovery by Former Associate

A Black former associate at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP shouldn’t be allowed to serve discovery requests on the firm four months after the initial March 2 deadline, the firm has told the Southern District of New York.

Kaloma Cardwell previously said he’d missed deadlines to respond to Davis Polk’s discovery requests in his employment discrimination lawsuit because of the disruption caused by the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and his subsequent decampment to North Carolina to shelter in place with his family.

But Cardwell left for North Carolina on March 13, more than a week after his deadline to serve his own discovery requests, Davis Polk said Thursday in its opposition to Cardwell’s motion to serve untimely discovery.

Cardwell’s argument that he was focused on drafting his amended complaint also shouldn’t be considered good cause for missing the March 2 deadline, the firm said. The court had previously told the parties that choosing to “focus on something else other than this matter” wouldn’t necessarily be considered good cause for altering the case’s scheduling order, according to the firm’s Thursday filing.

Cardwell retained separate counsel to pursue his discrimination claims against Davis Polk and is himself an attorney, the firm said. Their failure to abide by the court’s deadlines or to discuss any complications delays with opposing counsel shouldn’t be rewarded by the court and should be treated as a failure to prosecute Cardwell’s case, the firm said.

Davis Polk urged the court to deny Cardwell’s motion to serve untimely discovery and asked for relief the court deems appropriate in the face of his failure to abide by the agreed-upon timetables.

David Jeffries represents Cardwell. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP represents Davis Polk and the eight individual defendants.

The case is Cardwell v. Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, S.D.N.Y., No. 19-cv-10256, opposition filed 7/16/20.