Jackson v. PNC Bank et al
Filing
42
OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 37 MOTION amended motion to Compel Discovery, and 26 MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion to Extend Discovery and Brief to Support. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (Loury, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEROME JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 12-14134
THE FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
AND MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
Plaintiff Jerome Jackson moves to compel discovery and to extend discovery by
sixty days. The motions have been fully briefed, and a hearing is unnecessary. See
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2). For the following reasons, both motions will be denied.
I. DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Compel Discovery
Jackson claims that on December 7, 2012, and January 25, 2013, he served
Defendant Wayne County Home Program (“Wayne County”) with a request for
documents and interrogatories, respectively. Wayne County has allegedly failed to
answer these discovery requests, and Jackson moves to compel Wayne County to
respond. Wayne County denies that it ever received such requests and argues that it
first learned of the requests on June 19, 2013, when Jackson emailed Wayne County to
ask when it would respond. Wayne County maintains that Jackson did not inquire about
the discovery requests until this June 19, 2013 email.
Jackson’s motion to compel discovery is untimely. While discovery closed on
May 24, 2013, Jackson waited until July 3, 2013, to move to compel responses to
discovery requests that allegedly were made seven months prior. Furthermore, the
court is unable to determine whether such requests were served on the alleged dates.
Jackson’s brief in support of his motion claims to attach copies of the discovery
requests, but no copies were, in fact, included. Accordingly, Jackson has not met his
burden of demonstrating that Wayne County should be compelled to provide the
requested discovery, and the motion will be denied.
B. Motion to Extend Discovery
The original scheduling order allowed five months of discovery. On a joint motion
by the parties, the court extended discovery for sixty days and scheduled discovery to
end on May 24, 2013. On June 20, 2013, nearly one month after the close of discovery
and only four days before the dispositive motion deadline, Jackson moved to extend
discovery for another sixty days. A scheduling order “may be modified only for good
cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Jackson offers
numerous reasons for extending discovery, but none amount to “good cause” to warrant
modifying the scheduling order.
First, Jackson claims that Wayne County has not responded to Jackson’s
request for documents served on December 7, 2012, or interrogatories served on
January 25, 2013. As explained above, Wayne County denies receiving such discovery
requests, and Jackson has not provided a copy of the requests to allow the court to
confirm that such requests were, in fact, made.
2
Second, Jackson seeks an extension so that he may depose Maurice Adams as
an individual allegedly affiliated with the Home Program who is familiar with Jackson’s
decision to purchase a home using funds obtained from the Home Program. Jackson
claims that he requested that Wayne County identify an individual familiar with
Jackson’s case, but that Wayne County never responded. Wayne County maintains
that it did not receive Jackson’s request, and Jackson has failed to provided a copy of
this request so that the court can determine whether the request was made. Jackson
learned of Adams’s identity through other discovery, but he did not request to depose
Jackson until June 17, 2013, after discovery closed. Additionally, Wayne County
maintains that Adams is not affiliated with the Home Program, but rather with Wayne
County Mental Health Division. Consequently, it does not appear that Adams will be
able to provide Jackson with the information he seeks.
Jackson contends that it requested Defendant Federal National Mortgage
Association (“Fannie Mae”) to present for deposition a representative familiar with the
Community Home Choice Program, but that Fannie Mae has failed to do so. Fannie
Mae explains that, on May 16, 2013, one week before the close of discovery, Jackson
notified Fannie Mae that he wanted to depose a Fannie Mae representative. Fannie
Mae responded that it would produce a representative once Jackson informed Fannie
Mae of the topics about which he wanted to question the representative. Jackson
agreed, but did not so advise Fannie Mae until June 17, 2013, three weeks after
discovery ended.
Even though the court allowed seven months of discovery, Jackson waited until
the last minute to attempt to depose a Fannie Mae representative. Ultimately, Jackson
3
was unable to schedule the deposition before discovery closed. He has not shown
good cause for extending discovery another two months in order to complete the
deposition.
Finally, Jackson claims that two “new” pieces of information have become
available during discovery that require additional investigation. First, Jackson contends
that Fannie Mae’s Community Home Choice Program was a predatory lending program
targeted to disabled individuals such as Jackson. Jackson does not explain how he
only just learned of this information during discovery or how this information is otherwise
“new” to justify extending discovery. Indeed, his description of the Community Home
Choice Program appears to be a preview of his argument addressing why he should not
be evicted. Second, Jackson claims that his neighbor, who is disabled and purchased a
home through Community Home Choice Program, is also facing foreclosure and
eviction by Fannie Mae because Defendant Community Living Services has stated that
it will stop paying its portion of the neighbor’s monthly mortgage. Jackson’s counsel has
recently agreed to represent the neighbor in challenging the foreclosure. While the
neighbor and Jackson may be litigating similar claims against the same defendants,
Jackson does not clarify how the neighbor’s lawsuit provides good cause for extending
discovery in this action.
Defendants timely filed three motions for summary judgment, and if discovery
were reopened, Defendants would be prejudiced in having to file another round of
dispositive motions. Jackson has not met his burden of showing good cause for
amending the scheduling order and extending the discovery deadline.
be denied.
4
The motion will
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to extend discovery [Dkt.
# 26] and motion to compel discovery [Dkt. # 37] are DENIED.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 22, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, July 22, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(313) 234-5522
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?