Filali v. Harrisburg AL Operations LLC

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SAMI EL FILALI,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARRISBURG AL OPERATIONS
LLC,
Defendant.
CIVIL NO. 1:23-cv-00133
(KANE, J.)
(LATELLA, M.J.)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Sami El Filali has filed a “Motion to compel the
defendant to release the security camera recording tapes.” (Doc. 75).
Because the time for discovery in this matter has elapsed, we will deny
Plaintiff’s Motion.
I. 	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint on January 24,
2023. (Doc. 1). At the time the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff was
represented by counsel. (Id.). Defendant answered the Complaint on
April 17, 2023. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw
as counsel on October 11, 2023, indicating that Plaintiff had terminated
him. (Doc. 18). The court granted that motion on October 17, 2023 and
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 84 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 7

2
provided Plaintiff with thirty (30) days to find new counsel or advise the
Court of his intention to proceed pro se. (Doc. 21). On November 21,
2023, the Court issued another Order indicating that Plaintiff failed to
comply with its October 17, 2023 Order and directing Plaintiff to notify
the Court by December 1, 2023 as to whether he retained new counsel
or intended to proceed pro se. (Doc. 23). On November 30, 2023,
Plaintiff filed a letter to the docket stating that “[T]he Counsel [sic] of
American Islamic Relation is my new counsel in this case.” (Doc. 24).
However, the following day, December 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed another
letter to the docket indicating that he would be proceeding pro se.1
(Doc. 25).
The matter was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom for
pretrial management on December 20, 2023. Plaintiff filed an “Absence
Notice” on January 31, 2024 indicating that he would be out of the state
1 Defense counsel filed a letter the same day indicating that he
unsuccessfully 	attempted 	to 	contact 	an 	attorney 	at 	the 	Counsel 	of
American Islamic Relations and requesting that the Court order new
counsel to file a Notice of Appearance by the close of business on
December 1, 2023. (Doc. 26). On December 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed email
correspondence between himself and an attorney with the Council on
American-Islamic Relations. 	(Doc. 28). 	The email string included an
email providing that the Council on American-Islamic Relations would
not be representing Plaintiff in this matter. (Id.).
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 84 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 7

3
for some time due to his father’s death. (Doc. 29). On February 12,
2024, the Court instructed Plaintiff to file a status report with the court
within 60 days of his return. (Doc. 31). On June 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed
a “Status Report” indicating that he returned to the United States.
(Doc. 32).
A joint case management plan was submitted on June 25, 2024.
(Doc. 37). A case management order was entered on June 26, 2024,
which provided for, inter alia, a discovery deadline of January 31, 2025.
(Doc. 39). Plaintiff requested an extension of time for the deadline to
join additional parties and for the deadline to amend pleadings based
upon his planned travel out of state for family reasons. (Doc. 40). The
Court denied that motion on August 22, 2024. (Doc. 43). Plaintiff filed
an additional Motion for Continuance following a trip to Morocco for
“family reasons.” (Doc. 44). That Motion was likewise denied on
December 13, 2024. (Doc. 45). On January 24, 2025, Defendant filed a
Motion to Extend Factual Discovery based upon Plaintiff’s failure to
respond to discovery requests propounded by Defendant. (Doc. 52-1).
Defendant simultaneously requested a settlement conference, which the
Court scheduled for January 30, 2025. (Doc. 53). The Settlement
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 84 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 7

4
Conference was unsuccessful and so, on February 12, 2025, Defendant
again filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline. (Doc. 55-1). On
that same date, Defendant filed a request for leave to file a motion to
compel discovery responses from Plaintiff. (Doc. 56). On February 14,
2025, the Court granted the Motion to Extend the deadline until March
14, 2025. (Doc. 58). Defendant then filed a Motion to Extend the Time
to File a Dispositive Motion on March 18, 2025, which the Court
granted, extending the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions to
May 15, 2025. (Docs. 59, 60). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Continuance
on April 9, 2025, indicating that he would be out of the state beginning
April 10, 2025 due to a family emergency. (Doc. 64). The Court denied
that Motion on April 15, 2025. (Doc. 65).
Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting
brief on May 14, 2025. (Doc. 66). On June 10, 2025, the matter was
reassigned to the undersigned magistrate judge for pretrial
management. Plaintiff filed another motion to continue on August 8,
2025, which was denied on August 12, 2025. (Docs. 68, 69). Plaintiff
filed a brief in opposition to summary judgment on August 19, 2025 and
then filed a request for a copy of a deposition on August 21, 2025.
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 84 Filed 12/09/25 Page 4 of 7

5
(Docs. 70, 71). Defendant filed a reply brief in further support of
summary judgment on September 2, 2025. (Doc. 72).
Plaintiff then filed a “Request to appoint a representative” on
September 8, 2025. (Doc. 74). On that same date, he filed a “Motion to
compel the defendant to release the security camera recording tapes.”
(Doc. 75). On September 16, 2025, he filed a “Memorandum and Brief
Summary Defendant’s False Allegatio[n]s and Misleading Facts.” (Doc.
76). Defendant filed a letter on September 16, 2025 responding to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. (Doc. 77).
We now address Plaintiff’s “Motion to compel the defendant to
release the security camera recording tapes.” (Doc. 75).
II. 	DISCUSSION
Issues regarding the scope and timing of discovery rest in the
sound discretion of the court. 	Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812
F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1987). Where a party has submitted an untimely
discovery request, the court can, and in the exercise of its discretion
often should, refuse to compel compliance with that request. 	See, e.g.,
Maslanka v. Johnson & Johnson, 305 F. App'x 848 (3d Cir. 2008)
(affirming denial of pro se litigant’s motion to compel where discovery
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 84 Filed 12/09/25 Page 5 of 7

6
demands were untimely); Oriakhi v. United States, 165 F. App'x 991 (3d
Cir. 2006) (same); Bull v. United States, 143 F. App'x 468 (3d Cir. 2005)
(same).
To that end, a motion to compel filed after the deadlines for
discovery and the filing of dispositive motions is properly denied. 	Finzie
v. Shineski, 351 F. App’x 668, 672, n. 7 (3d Cir. 2009); Frazier v. SCI
Medical Dispensary Doctor + 2 Staff Members, No. 1:07-0194, 2009 WL
136724, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (“A motion to compel after the
close of discovery is not timely and will be denied absent special
circumstances.”); Muniz v. Price, 3:10-cv-345, 2010 WL 4537037, *3
(M.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2010) (denying motion to compel as untimely and
because “many of the discovery requests that are the subject of [motion]
seek material which does not exist.”).
Here, the discovery deadline was March 14, 2025. (Doc. 58).
Defendant stated that it repeatedly informed Plaintiff that the video
footage sought does not exist, including during a February 6, 2025
settlement conference. (Doc. 77). Notwithstanding the fact that
Plaintiff inquired about the status of the video footage prior to the
discovery deadline and was informed by the Defendant that it did not
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 84 Filed 12/09/25 Page 6 of 7

7
exist, Plaintiff did not take any action to move to compel the video
footage until September 8, 2025.2 	(Doc. 75). This was nearly six (6)
months after the close of fact discovery and nearly four (4) months after
the deadline for filing dispositive motions. Given the untimely nature
of Plaintiff’s Motion, it will be denied.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s “Motion to compel the
defendant to release the security camera recording tapes” will be
denied. An Order follows.
Date: December 9, 2025 	s/ Leo A. Latella
LEO A. LATELLA
United States Magistrate Judge
2 We also note the court cannot compel the production of evidence
by parties who assert that they do not possess the materials sought by
an adversary in litigation. 	See, e.g., AFSCME District Council 47
Health and Welfare Fund v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., No. 08-5904, 2010 WL 5186088, *4 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2010) (court
denied motion to compel where plaintiffs represented that they did not
possess the documents sought by defendant); Knauss v. Shannon, No.
08-1698, 2009 WL 975251, *3 (M.D. Pa. April 9, 2009) (motion to compel
denied where defendant asserted that video footage sought by plaintiff
did not exist); Lawson v. Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., No.
1:17-CV-1266, 2019 WL 5622453, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2019) (“[i]t is
clear . . . that the court cannot compel the production of things that do
not exist.”). Defendant has represented that the video footage sought by
Plaintiff here does not exist and Plaintiff has provided no reason why
the Court should not accept that representation.
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 84 Filed 12/09/25 Page 7 of 7