Durant v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Filing 44

ORDER Affirming 35 Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Limited Discovery. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STEVEN OMAR DURANT,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14-13054
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY,

Defendant.
/
ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY
(Docket No. 35)
This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen
Limited Discovery [Docket No. 32, filed August 31, 2015]. Defendant filed
a Response to the Motion [Docket No.37, filed October 7, 2015]. The
Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, who Denied
Plaintiff’s Motion [Docket No. 35, filed September 18, 2015]. Plaintiff filed
objections, [Docket No. 36, filed October 2, 2015] to which Defendant
responded [Docket No. 37, filed October 9, 2015].
A Magistrate Judge’s order regarding a non-dispositive motion will be
upheld unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. §
1

636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Any appeal or objections to a magistrate
judge’s order must specify the part of the order the party objects to, and
state the basis for the objection. ED. Mich. LR 72.1; 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). In a non-dispositive order entered by a
magistrate judge, a district judge shall consider such objections and shall
modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s order found to be
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). “A finding is
‘clearly erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support it, the
reviewing court ... is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333
U.S. 364, 398 (1948); Hagaman v. C.I.R., 958 F.2d 684, 690 (6th Cir.
1992). Rule 72(a) provides considerable deference to the determination of
the magistrate judges. In re Search Warrants, 889 F.Supp. 296, 298 (S.D.
Ohio 1995).
After reviewing Magistrate Judge Grand’s Order, the Court finds that
he did not commit clear error in finding that Durant failed to show the
requisite good cause for the relief he requests. According to Rule 16, a
party moving to reopen discovery must demonstrate “good cause” to
modify a court’s scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Rule 16’s ‘good

2

cause’ standard examines the moving party’s diligence in attempting to
meet the case management order’s requirements, though courts may also
consider prejudice to the nonmoving party. Smith v. Holston Med. Group,
P.C., 595 F. App’x 474, 478 (6th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Magistrate Judge Grand cited Durant’s lack of diligence in pursing
discovery, his failure to timely notify the Court of his purported financial
difficulties due to his criminal case and incarceration, his alleged need for
additional discovery, and the prejudice State Farm would suffer by
re-opening expert witness discovery as reasons for finding Durant failed to
establish the requisite good cause. Durant filed the instant motion on
August 31, 2015, more than five months after the discovery deadline of
March 16, 2015.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s September
18, 2015 Order [Docket No. 35] is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff’s Objections
[Docket No. 36, filed October 2, 2015] is OVERRULED.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: October 13, 2015

3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on October 13, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4