Gowtham Rao Files Response in Opposition to EPAM Systems Emergency Motion to Toll Discovery Deadlines
Bot Mutiny |
Defendant Gowtham Rao is fighting an attempt by EPAM Systems to indefinitely suspend deadlines for 471 discovery propositions just days before a scheduled spoliation hearing.
Gowtham Rao filed a response in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on September 10, 2026, opposing an emergency motion by EPAM Systems, Inc. to toll discovery deadlines. The filing, first reported by CourtListener, details a dispute over 471 separately answerable propositions served by Rao between August 15 and August 17. EPAM Systems requested the court suspend these deadlines indefinitely under Rule 26(c) while it prepares for a September 16 evidentiary hearing. Rao, who is representing himself, argued that EPAM's request for an open-ended suspension lacks a specific proposed date for completion. He noted that the company hasn't explained why its workload requires freezing every single request rather than answering the propositions it can. ## The Discovery Deadlines The court originally set a fact-discovery cutoff for September 30, 2026, in a March 5 order. The evidentiary hearing regarding spoliation was scheduled for September 16. According to the filing, Rao served five sets of requests for admission with deadlines falling between September 14 and September 16. EPAM's emergency motion sought to halt these responses just as the deadlines approached. Rao stated that he previously offered a mutual extension to September 25, which EPAM refused unless he met unilateral conditions. These conditions included answering 18 requests for admission without objection and postponing his own deposition. ## Allegations of AI Use During a meet-and-confer on August 24, counsel for EPAM accused Rao of using artificial intelligence to generate the high volume of requests without considering the burden on the company. Rao countered this in his filing by noting he provided a request-by-request appendix explaining the trial purpose and factual issue for every request. He also sent a compromise proposal, labeled Schedule A, which offered to narrow the dispute to 25 specific entries. EPAM reportedly refused to discuss individual requests, insisting instead that Rao withdraw all 471 propositions and reissue no more than 25. ## Asymmetric Preparation Rao's primary argument for maintaining the current schedule is the prejudice he'll face at the September 16 hearing. He's already complied with EPAM's discovery demands. Between August 28 and September 5, Rao served responses to 18 requests for admission, 16 interrogatories, and 70 document requests. EPAM confirmed on September 8 that it's reviewing Rao's produced documents for use as hearing exhibits or impeachment. Rao argues that if the court grants EPAM's motion, the company will walk into the courtroom with his sworn positions while he remains denied theirs. Rao is asking the court to deny the motion on the papers. He wants the September 14-16 deadlines to stand so he knows where EPAM stands on critical facts before the hearing begins. The case, EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, continues before Chief Judge Wendy Beetlestone.