“Hail Mary” Falls Short as Court Denies Motion to Compel 50,000 Pages of Privileged Documents
Attala Steel Indus., LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. (N.D. Miss. Jan. 8, 2026)
Why This Alert Is Important
This decision highlights the court's intolerance for discovery motions that disregard procedural deadlines and proportionality. Even when new affirmative defenses are allowed late in a case, they do not provide a "back door" to re-litigate discovery matters that were previously closed.
Overview
In Attala Steel Indus., LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., the Defendant (Travelers) moved to compel the production of approximately 150 documents—totaling over 50,000 pages—that the Plaintiff and a third party, Risk Strategies, had withheld as privileged. The dispute arose after Travelers successfully moved, late in the litigation, to amend its answer to include three new affirmative defenses involving alleged concealment and breach of cooperation.
While the court initially granted a narrowly tailored 70-day discovery extension to address these specific new defenses, Travelers did not request new discovery. Instead, Travelers filed a motion to compel production of materials responsive to its original December 2024 document requests and an April 2025 subpoena—discovery that had concluded months prior. Defendant also suggested that the Magistrate Judge conduct an in camera review of the 50,000+ pages to resolve the privilege claims within a twelve-day window before the final pretrial deadline.
The Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was untimely, violated local rules regarding meet-and-confer requirements, and sought "blanket relief" without addressing specific objections.
Ruling Summary
- Improper Use of Discovery Extensions
The court found that Travelers’ attempt to use a specific, narrowly tailored discovery extension to revive old discovery disputes was meritless. The ruling noted that the original discovery “did not pertain to the three new affirmative defenses” and any suggestion otherwise “would fly in the face of Defendant’s repeated representations” made when seeking the amendment. The court emphasized that the extension was restricted to the new defenses, not a license to re-open closed discovery. - Procedural and Timing Deficiencies
The ruling characterized the motion as a "hail Mary effort" filed too late to be realistically adjudicated. It observed that the motion was not ripe until December 18, 2025, making the suggestion that the court could review 50,000 pages and issue an opinion by December 30 “not even colorable.” The court held that filing a 535-page motion with a 50-page reply so close to the deadline was “wholly unrealistic” and violated the spirit of efficient litigation. The ruling noted the Defendant had time to “[propound] selected discovery requests… related to its affirmative defenses,” but “elected not to do so, and consequently, its motion to compel is plainly without merit.” - Burden of In Camera Review
The court soundly rejected the proposal to review 50,000 pages in camera. The ruling explained that the request for the court to decide on claimed privilege for such a massive volume of data on an expedited basis was "futile," and that “the suggestion that this allowed for ‘meaningful time for full briefing and for judicial resolution of the issues’ [was] ridiculous.” The ruling reminded counsel that the court is not a resource for "wholesale" review of documents that were "claimed as privileged long ago," especially when the moving party failed to meet its burden of establishing specific relevance or prejudice.
One thing that annoys a judge is a party that leaves its discovery obligations until the last minute, then the parties bombard the Court with some 600 pages of briefing—on a discovery issue. And then seeks to have the judge review some 50,000 pages of documents to see if they really are privileged. Judges are not like the Maytag repairman, just waiting around to deal with your case on an emergency basis created by counsel’s own delay. They have a busy civil and criminal docket. So don’t leave discovery to the last minute. Hon. Andrew Peck (ret.), Senior Counsel, DLA Piper
Data Privacy Tip
Litigants should ensure that any motion to compel is filed with sufficient lead time to allow for briefing and judicial review before the close of discovery. Proposing a massive in camera review as a "quick fix" for late-stage discovery disputes is likely to be viewed by the court as an unreasonable burden rather than a productive solution. For more on understanding the lenses through which courts will rule on discovery, download Exterro’s Guide to the FRCP.
