United States District Court, District of Columbia
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, District Judge.
Plaintiff Renee Abt moves to compel the production of documents from the U.S. Park Police to support her allegations of unlawful employment discrimination. Defendant contends that Ms. Abt's document requests already have been produced, do not exist, or were not properly sought by her in discovery. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Ms. Abt's motion.
Detective Renee Abt sues her former employer, the U.S. Park Police,  alleging that the Agency unlawfully placed her on limited duty status after she disclosed her pregnancy. Compl. [Dkt. 1] ¶¶ 64-70. Ms. Abt alleges that, by reassigning her from the Criminal Investigations Branch to Human Resources and changing her shift from nights and weekends to a standard weekday shift, the U.S. Park Police discriminated against her on the basis of pregnancy in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). The parties have been conducting fact discovery since May 28, 2013, see Scheduling Order [Dkt. 17], and the Court has held four telephone conferences to resolve various discovery disputes surrounding the parties' document requests and depositions. On February 5, 2014, the Court granted Ms. Abt leave to file a motion to compel relating to any outstanding discovery disputes. See Feb. 5, 2014 Minute Order.
On February 25, 2014, Ms. Abt's counsel moved to compel the production of five categories of documents:
 Documents Relating to a Purported "Pressing Need" for Help in Human Resources;
 Reassignment Memoranda for Injured and/or Pregnant [U.S. Park Police] Personnel;
 A Search for Any Missing Payton Responsive Emails;
 A Witness Prepared to Testify as to the Handwriting on [a] Draft Memorandum Dated July 18, 2008; and
 Items Withheld [o]n the Basis of Objections to [Ms. Abt's] Discovery Requests.
Mot. to Compel [Dkt. 34] at 1.
Defendant filed an opposition on March 14, 2014, arguing that "the information [Ms. Abt] seeks to compel either has been produced, does not exist, or was not sought by [her] in discovery." See Opp'n [Dkt. 37] at 1.
Under the first Scheduling Order, fact discovery was scheduled to close on November 25, 2013, see Scheduling Order at 1, but the Court granted three requests for extensions of time to complete discovery, see Nov. 12, 2013 Minute Order; Feb. 14, 2014 Minute Order; Mar. 10, 2014 Minute Order. The parties completed fact discovery on March 14, 2014, and the Court held a post-discovery status conference four days later. See Mar. 18, 2014 Minute Entry. At the status conference, Ms. ...