Brunenkant v. Public Storage Operating Company, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
J. Mark Coulson
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
P:(410) 962-4953 — F:(410) 962-2985
November 4, 2025
LETTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD
RE: Brunenkant v. Public Storage Operating Company, et al.
Civil No. 1:24-cv-02375-JMC
Dear Counsel:
The instant case involves a dispute arising from the Plaintiff’s lease of a self-storage unit
that flooded. (ECF Nos. 26, 44, 46). On October 28, 2025, Defendants alerted this Court to a
discovery dispute. (ECF No. 54). The Court directed the parties to file position letters on October
29, 2025 in accordance with its informal procedures governing discovery disputes. (ECF Nos. 39
and 55). The parties submitted their respective position statements regarding the current dispute
on October 30, 2025, and November 4, 2025. (ECF Nos. 56, 58).
1. Plaintiff’s Outstanding Discovery Responses
Defendants alerted the Court to the existence of a discovery dispute regarding Plaintiff’s
delayed production of documents and responses to interrogatories. (ECF No. 56 at 1).1 Although
Plaintiff requested a two-week extension—until October 17, 2025, to serve his responses, that date
came and went without production. Id. Eventually, on or about October 25, Plaintiff indicated
that his response would be withheld until Defendants produced their discovery responses. Id.
After reminding Plaintiff that the existence of one discovery dispute does not justify delaying other
discovery, See Loc. R. 104.3 (D. Md. 2025) Defendants granted Plaintiff until October 27 to
produce his discovery responses. Id.
It appears based on Plaintiff’s position letter received by the Court on November 4, 2025,
that Plaintiff “fully responded to all outstanding discovery requests addressed to Plaintiff by the
Defendants, including their interrogatories and request for the production of documents.” (ECF
No. 58). To that end, it appears this dispute has resolved. If Defendants deem those responses
incomplete, they are, of course, free to raise these deficiencies with Plaintiff and, if necessary, with
the Court through the informal discovery dispute process in place.
1 When the Court cites to a specific page number or range of page numbers, the Court is referring to the page numbers
provided in the electronic filing stamps located at the top of every electronically filed document. Where a document
is not electronically stamped, the citation is instead to the number at the bottom of the page.
Case 1:24-cv-02375-JMC Document 59 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 2

2. Defendant’s Discovery Responses
Plaintiff indicates in his position letter “Defendants have still not provided any meaningful
responses to Plaintiff’s August 5, 2025, Request for Documents.” (ECF No. 58). If Plaintiff is
unable to resolve the issue through continued discussions with Defendants, he is free to utilize the
Court’s information discovery dispute process set forth in ECF No. 39.
3. Scheduling Order
The Court is aware that the current discovery deadline is scheduled for November 24, 2025.
(ECF No. 42). Both parties have expressed concern about this date in light of the discovery dispute.
(ECF Nos. 56 at 2, 58). The Court will consider a reasonable joint request for modification of the
Scheduling Order. Any such request should be riled by November 12, 2025.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an Opinion and Order of
the Court and the Clerk is directed to docket it as such.
Sincerely yours,
___________/s/____________
J. Mark Coulson
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:24-cv-02375-JMC Document 59 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 2