Garner v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 108

ORDER denying 106 Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DARLENE GARNER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-cv-10377
v.
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING,
INC., et al
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY (Dkt. 106)
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing’s August 10, 2018
Emergency Motion to Stay Magistrate Judge Ordered Discovery Deadlines Pending Decision On
Objections To Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part Motion For Protective Order (Dkt.
106). The motion follows Defendant’s August 8, 2018 filing of objections (Dkt. 105) to the
magistrate judge’s July 25, 2018 order requiring certain discovery responses by August 10, 2018
(Dkt. 103).
Defendant was provided more than two weeks to comply with the magistrate judge’s order
requiring discovery responses. Defendant argues in its objections that requiring it to provide those
responses constitutes clear error and would compromise certain proprietary interests.

Yet

Defendant waited until the final day allowable to file its objections, see E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.1(d)(3),
and then filed an emergency motion to stay the proceedings two days later – at the end of the
business day on which the magistrate judge’s order required compliance.1 If Defendant believed

1

Under the Local Rules, Defendant’s late-filed emergency motion gave the Court mere hours to
rule. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.2 (“When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a

that this truly constituted an emergency and that the magistrate judge’s order compromised its
interests so severely, it should not have waited as long as it did to both file the objections and file
the motion to stay. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to stay.
SO ORDERED.
Date: August 20, 2018
Detroit, Michigan

s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge

Certificate of Service
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and
any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 20, 2018.
s/William Barkholz
Case Manager substituting
for Karri Sandusky

non‐dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by
the magistrate judge or a district judge.”).