Lee v. Li

Filing 30

ORDER GRANTING 29 MOTION TO EXTEND filed by Robert Edward Lee. (Response to anticipated Rule 12(c) Motion due by 9/1/2015) Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT EDWARD LEE,
Plaintiff,

No. 14-11722

v.

District Judge Matthew F. Leitman
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

SAI LI, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
Plaintiff Robert Lee, proceeding pro se, has filed a self-styled “Motion to Extend
Time for Answer to Order or This Amend Motion” [Doc. #29]. It is not at all clear what
Mr. Lee is requesting. Discovery has been stayed pending resolution of timely filed
motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), and those motions are not due until July 16, 2015.
To the extent, then, that Mr. Lee is requesting reconsideration of the Court’s June
16, 2015 order denying without prejudice his request for discovery [Doc. #27], his motion
would be denied.
The time for filing a response to a dispositive motion, such as a motion under Rule
12(c), is 21 days. If Mr. Lee is asking for additional time to respond to Defendant’s
anticipated Rule 12(c) motion–and I believe this is the fairest reading of his motion– I
will grant that request, in deference to the fact that he is not represented by counsel.
Accordingly, Mr. Lee’s motion [Doc. #29] is construed as a request for additional
time to respond to Defendant’s anticipated Rule 12(c) motion, and is GRANTED.
Mr. Lee must file a response to a timely filed defense motion for judgment on the
pleadings no later that 42 days after he receives the Defendant’s motion. Because Mr. Lee
-1-

is not an e-filer, he will be presumed to have received a copy of the Defendant’s motion
five days after the Defendant mails it to him.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Date: July 13, 2015
Certificate of Service
I certify that a copy of this order was served upon parties of record via electronic
or postal mail.
/s/A. Chubb
DEPUTY CLERK

-2-