Flagg v. Detroit, City of et al

Filing 172

Flagg v. Detroit, City of et al

Doc. 172

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ERNEST FLAGG, as Next Friend of JONATHAN BOND; TARIS JACKSON, as Next Friend of ASHLY JACKSON; and BRIAN GREENE, as Next Friend of INDIA BOND, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DETROIT, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CASE SCHEDULE EXTENSION At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan on October 28, 2008 PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen United States District Judge By motion filed on October 7, 2008, Plaintiffs seek a 90-day extension of the various dates set forth in the January 4, 2008 scheduling order in this case, as subsequently amended in a March 20, 2008 order. No Defendant has responded to this motion, and the record does not otherwise indicate whether they concur in or oppose the relief sought by Plaintiffs.1 Having reviewed Plaintiffs' motion and the record as a

Case No. 05-74253 Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

Unfortunately, while Plaintiffs have filed a 19-page motion -- complete with 57 numbered paragraphs and 22 accompanying exhibits -- that recounts essentially the entire history of the parties' discovery efforts and disputes to date, they fail to indicate anywhere in this

1

Dockets.Justia.com

whole, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' October 7, 2008 motion for case schedule extension is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's January 4, 2008 scheduling order, as previously amended, is further AMENDED to extend the relevant deadlines by an additional ninety (90) days, as follows: Preliminary Witness Lists: Discovery Cut-Off: Non-Expert Final Witness Lists: Dispositive Motions: Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order: Final Pretrial Settlement Conference: Trial: 1/16/2009 1/30/2009 2/13/2009 3/2/2009 6/19/2009 Thursday, 6/25/2009 at 10:00 a.m. July 2009

In all other respects, the January 4, 2008 scheduling order, as amended, remains in full force and effect.

Dated: October 28, 2008 s/Gerald E. Rosen United States District Judge

lengthy submission that they complied with Local Rule 7.1(a) of this District by seeking Defendants' concurrence in the relief sought in their motion. Counsel are strongly cautioned that the Court will insist upon strict compliance with this rule as a prerequisite to consideration of any future motions. In addition, Plaintiffs should take note that it is not necessary to attach the Court's opinions and orders as exhibits to their motions -- the Court is quite familiar with its own rulings, and they are readily available for review on the public docket. 2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on October 28, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry Case Manager

3