Warren v. Sweepster Attachments, LLC., a wholly owned subsidiary of International Equipment Solutions, Inc.

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF SCHEDULING ORDER DATES 26 AND EMERGENCY JOINT MOTION REQUESTING MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER AS TO DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE 27 . Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

TIMOTHY WARREN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 14-cv-14204
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

SWEEPSTER ATTACHMENTS, LLC
a wholly owned subsidiary of
International Equipment Solutions,
LLC,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
R. STEVEN WHALEN

Defendant.
/
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF SCHEDULING ORDER
DATES [26] AND EMERGENCY JOINT MOTION REQUESTING MODIFICATION OF
SCHEDULING ORDER AS TO DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE
[27]
Presently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Adjournment of
Scheduling Order Dates [26], filed on February 22, 2016, and the parties’
Emergency Joint Motion Requesting Modification of Scheduling Order as to
Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadline [27], filed on February 26, 2016.
Upon review of the present motions, the Court concludes that the parties have not
demonstrated good cause for granting the requested relief in either motion.
The parties request adjournment so that they can complete five depositions
scheduled throughout March and April. See Dkt. No. 26 at 2 (Pg. ID No. 117); Dkt.

-1-

No. 27 at 3 (Pg. ID No. 124). However, this matter has already been adjourned
twice. It was adjourned on August 25, 2015. See Dkt. No. 19. It was also adjourned
on November 20, 2015. See Dkt. No. 23.
The original discovery cutoff date was August 28, 2015. See Dkt. No. 10.
Then it became December 4, 2015. See Dkt. No. 19. Then it became February 29,
2016. See Dkt. No. 23. It is now March of 2016. The parties have had more than a
year since the original January 26, 2015 Scheduling Order to complete discovery.
Yet the only explanation provided by the parties for their failure to meet this
deadline is: “All but one of the witnesses live out of state, making the scheduling
and taking of these depositions more time consuming and complicated.” Dkt. No.
26 at 2 (Pg. ID No. 117).
Putting aside the fact that this excuse necessarily means that there is no
reason for why the one local witness has yet to be deposed, the reasoning provided
by the parties does not amount to good cause. In the November 20, 2015 Order
Granting Adjournment, the Court explicitly noted that there would be no further
adjournment of the scheduled dates. Dkt. No. 23 at 2 (Pg. ID No. 111) (“There will
be no further adjournment of the scheduled dates.”). The order explicitly stated that
Discovery would end on February 29, 2016. Id. at 1. At that time, it should have
become paramount to the parties to make sure that they met the deadline. Instead,
the parties chose to schedule depositions after the close of discovery.

-2-

The Court refuses to litigate this matter into perpetuity. Accordingly, the
Joint Motion for Adjournment of Scheduling [26] and the Emergency Joint Motion
Requesting Modification of Scheduling Order as to Discovery and Dispositive
Motion Deadline [27] are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 3, 2016
Detroit, MI

/s/Gershwin A Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge

-3-